The URL can be used to link to this page

06-09-80 agenda I ~ ~. CITY OF RICHFIELD, MINNESOTA Office of City Manager Council Letter No. 219 Agenda June 9, 1980 The Honorable Mayor and Members of the City Council City of Richf field Council Members: d office building at 1400 West 76th Street. The developer is proceed- ing with conditions which the council placed on the approval of the project. They have indicated that they will be requesting that the council reconsider the stipulation relating to the number of parking spaces provided. They would like to provide the additional spaces only if experience shows that the spaces are necessary. The devel- oper is requesting, as we anticipated, that the city issue industrial development revenue bonds to finance the development. The first step in this process is for the city council to conduct a public hearing, and subsequent to that hearing, to give preliminary approval to the issuance of the revenue bonds. The developer has indicated that he will report to the council at the same time as his ability to meet the stipulations imposed by the variance. It is recommended that the council pass a resolution to set July 14, 1980, as the date to conduct the public hearing on this matter. The resolution will be available at the council meeting. Respectfully submitted, Karl Nollenberger City Manager KN/jf cc: Community Development Director Subject: Setting Public Hearing Date to Consider the Issuance of Industrial Development Revenue Bonds for Corporate Travel Office Development ~^ i CERTIr^ICATION OF MINUTES RELATING TO INDUSTRIAL DEVELOPMENT REVEi~UE BONDS Issuer : City of Richfield, ~'~linnesota Governing Body: City Council Kind, date, time and place of meeting: A regular meeting, held on June 9, 1980, at 7 o'clock P.M., at Richfield City Hall. Members present; Members absent: Documents Attached: Minutes of said meeting (pages): RESOLUTION NO. RESOLUTION RELATING TO A PROJECT UNDER THE MUNICIPAL INDUSTRIAL DEVELOPMENT ACT; CALLING FOR A PUBLIC HEARING THEREON I, the undersigned, being the duly qualified and acting recording officer of the public corporation issuing the obligations referred to in the title of this certificate, certify that the documents attached hereto, as described above, have been carefully compared with the original records of said corporation in my legal custody, from which they have been transcribed; that said documents are a correct and complete transcript of the minutes of a meeting of the governing body of said corporation, and correct and complete copies of all resolutions and other actions taken and of all documents approved by the governing body at said meeting, so far as they relate to said obligations; and that said meeting was duly held by the governing body at the time and place and was attended throughout by the members indicated above, pursuant to call and notice of such meeting given as required by law. WITNESS my hand officially as such recording officer this day of 1980. (SEAL) Signature Sylvia K. Bergh, City C1_erk Name and Title RESOLUT•IOra No. RESOLUTION RELATING TO A PROJECT UNDER THE MUNICIPAL INDUSTRIAL• DEtiELOPNiENT ACT; CALLING FOR A PUBLIC HEARING THEREGN BE IT RESOLJED by the City Council of the City of Richfield, Minnesota (hereinafter, the Municipality), as follows: Section 1. Recitals. rJ /J I~ fir, 1.01, A partnership to be formed by Charles W. Erickson, Steven E. Wirth, Kathryn E. Wirth, Thomas E, Erickson and Lyla S. Erickson (hereinafter, the Borrower), has advised this Council of its desire to acquire land in the Municipality and to construct and equip thereon an office building facility to be leased by the Borrower to Corporate Travel-Twin Cities, Inc., a Lyiinnesota corporation, and others. 1.02. The Municipality is authorized by Minnesota Statutes, Chapter 474 (the Act), to issue its revenue bonds to finance capital projects consisting of properties used and useful in connection with a revenue-producing enterprise. Z'he Borrower has requested that the Municipality issue its revenue bonds in an amount not exceeding to finance a portion or all of the cost of the Project. Section 2. Public Hearing. 2.01. Section 474.01, Subdivision 7b of the Act requires that prior to submission of an application to the Minnesota Commissioner of Securities requesting approval of the Project as required by Section 474.01, Subaivision 7 of the Act, this Council shall conduct a public hearing on the proposal to undertake and finance the Project. Pursuant to that provision, a public hearing on the proposal to undertake ana finance the Project is called and shall be held on July 14, 1980, at 7'clock P.M „ at Richfield City Hall, 6700 Portland Avenue, Richfield, Minnesota 55423. 2.02. The City Clerk shall cause notice of the public hearing to be published in the official newspaper of the Municipality and in the Minneapolis Tribune, a newspaper of general circulation in r_he Municipality, at least once not less than fifteen (15) nor more than thirty (30) days prior to the date fixed for the hearing, such notice to be in substantially the following form: NOTICE Or PUBLIC HEARING ON A PROPOSED PROJECZ' AND Z'HE ISSUANCE OF INDUSTRIAL DEVELOP~ti~ENT REVENUE BONDS UNDER THE .ti1UNICIPAL INDUSTRIAL DEVELOPMENT ACT, MINNESOTA STATUTES, CHAPTER 474, AS AMENDED CITY OF RICHFIELD, MINNESOTA NOTICE IS HEREBY GIVEN that the City Council of the City of Richfield, Minnesota, will meet on July 14, 1980, at 7 o'clock P.M., at the City Hail, 6700 Portland Avenue, in Richfield, Minnesota, for the purpose of conducting a public hearing on a proposal that the City issue revenue bonds, in one or more series, under the Municipal Industrial Development Act, Minnesota Statutes, Chapter 474, as amended, in order tc finance the cost of a project. The proposed project will consist of the acquisition of land in the City and the construction and equipment thereon of a facility to be used as an office building by a partnership to be formed by Charles W. Erickson, Steven E. Wirth, Kathryn E. Wirth, Thomas E, Erickscn and Lyla S. Erickson (the Borrower) and leased by the Borrower to Corporate Travel-Twin Cities, Inc. and others. The estimated total amount of the proposed bond ~ issue is , , The bonds shall be limited ~' obligations of the City, and the bonds and interest thereon shall be payable solely from the revenue pledged ~~ to the payment thereof, except that such bonds may be ~/~- secured by a mortgage and other encumbrance on the project. No holder of any such bonds shall ever have the right to compel any exercise of the taxing power of the City to pay the bonds or the interest thereon, nor to enforce payment against any property of the City except the project. A draft copy of the proposed application to the Minnesota Commissioner of Securities for approval of the Project, together with all attachments and exhibits thereto, is available for public inspection at the office of the City Clerk between the hours of A.M. and P.Ni. All persons interested may appear and be heard at the time and place set forth above. Dated: , 1980. BY ORDER OF Z'HE CITY COUNCIL By 2.03. A draft copy of the proposed application to tree Niinr.esota Commissioner of Securities, together with all :attac:u-nents and exhibits thereto, are hereby ordered place on rile with the City Clerk, and shall be available for public inspection, following the publication of the notice of public hearing, between the hours of and on Monday through Friday. 1980. Mayor Attest: Adopted this day of City Clerk The motion for the adoption of the foregoing resolution was duly seconded by Member and upon vote being taken thereon, the following voted in favor thereof : and the following voted against the same: whereupon the resolution was declared duly passed and adopted and was signed by the Mayor whose signature was attested by the City Clerk. -2- ~i CITY OF RICHFIELD „ MINNESOTA Office of City Manager <~: ~~ The Honorable Mayor i` and ~`~' Members of the City Council =--~. City of Richfield Council Members: ~~ Council Letter No. 218 Agenda June g, 1980 Subject: Discussion of Storm Drainage Problems in the City of Richfield As a result of a number of phone calls and other requests an item has been listed on the June 9, 1980 city council 'agenda, con- cerning storm drainage improvements in the city. I thought it would be appropriate to begin a discussion of storm drainage prob- lems in the city with a recitation of the history of council action on this matter. I will attempt to detail the problem areas for storm drainage in the City of Richfield and what possible solutions exist for them. In 1977 and 1978, there were rain storms in the City of Richfield which caused severe water inundation on private property and resulted in damages to residential property. The severity of these problems caused the city council to commission an engineering analysis of the problems with the City of Richfield's storm drainage system. That analysis was completed on September 22, 1978, and entitled Storm Water Study and Analysis of Flooding for the City of Richfield, Minnesota. The firm of Orr-Shelen-Mayeron and Associates (OSM) were responsible for that engirioering analysis of our storm drainage sys- tem. This study and other investigations have confirmed that the with diti excess of designed rainfall. Lem perrorms well for con- The problems that occur are The City of Richfield's storm drainage system was designed for what is referred to as the five-year storm. On a statistical basis, the probability of that storm occurring once every five years is calculated both in terms of amount of rainfall and a period of time in which the rainfall is received. By comparison, the 1977 and 1978 rainfall succeeded the 100-year storm, or storms with a statistical probability of occurring once every one hundred years. Our storm sewer system, which is based on a five-year design, incorporates the possibilities of water storage capacity in the public rights-of-way, when there is a rain- fall^in excess of the five-year potential. Design standards meeting benefit analysis of ' Council Letter No. 218 -2- June 9, 1980 This does not, however, eliminate the need for review of numerous storm drainage problems within the City of Richfield. As a result of the OSM report, the city council initiated a public hearing which was held on June 25, 1979. The public hearing was to consider storm drainage improvements to Norby and Wilson Ponds, the drainage area served by those ponds as well as a number of other spot areas within the city which warranted improvements in the right-of-way. Large special assessment districts were put together for consideration of improvements to the ponding areas. Presentations were made by the engineering consultants as well as city staff members. Numerous residents attended and expressed their opinions. While I was not in attendance, it is my understanding that there was an overwhelming prevalent opinion in opposition to the projects. The record shows that at least twenty persons spoke in strong opposition to the storm sewer and drainage improvement project.. On the other side, six in- dividuals spoke in favor of the strom drainage project. The six individuals who spoke for the most part were individuals directly affected by the upstream storm water run off from those people who spoke against the project. At the close of the project hearing there was a motion to request the staff to review and develop alternate solutions for resolving drainage problei~is in the subject area and to develop a report for the city council to review at the regularly scheduled October 9, 1979 city council meeting. During the period subsequent to June 25, there was a turnover of three city staff members which effected positions involved in the analysis of the storm drainage situation. The city manager, director of public works (city engineer) and director of community development positions all were vacated and filled during that period of time. As a result, the city council did not dis ments again until the November 19, 1979 c capital improvements. It was reported to sically there were no solutions to the ma tions to those expect relief previously. H city council that ba- areas served by the Norby and~Wilson Ponds could not without the major storm drainage improvements invisioned justify some partial sol utions. Those areas which were identified for par tial-s olutions were: 1. 69th Street and Xerxes Avenue 2. Alley south of 66th Street between Vincent and Washburn Avenues 3. 76th Street and Washburn Avenue 4. 69th/ 70th Street and Penn Avenue 5. 68th Street and Oliver Avenue 6. 68th Street and James Avenue 7. 66th Street and James/Irving Avenues 8. 68th Street and Stevens Avenue 9. 73rd Street and First Avenue Council Letter No. 218 -3- tions and to consider the capital improveme will be submitted to 1981 through 1986 CIP June 9, 1980 direct the staff to develop specific ns for improvements at these loca- inancing them for a inclusion in The capital improvement program cil in October of 1980 for the The attached table indicates a summary of potential alternates and recommendations updated from the September 22, 1973 OSM report. Summary sheets indicate 38 locations which are potential problems for storm drainage in the city and indicate the alternates looked at as well as the recommendation from the firm of OSM. Based upon our staff analysis of the OSM report as well as field inspections and conversa- tions with citizens we would recommend that the council consider further improvements to the following areas. Location #2, 69th and Xerxes It is recommended that the city authorize installation of storm drainage catch basins in the alley and berming on Xerxes Avenue to prevent water flow to the houses in mid-block on Xerxes. The parcel of property on the corner of 70th and Penn on the northeast side is anticipated to develop in the near future. Much of the water which inundates the property located at 6921 Penn and the adjacent house comes from overflow from the 70th and Penn inter- section. During heavy rainstorms this can produce massive flooding at the rear of the residential properties. In the development of the condominum project at 70th and Penn, the developer should be required to increase the elevation of his development so that it serves as a berm to prevent water flow through the rear lots and down to 6921 Penn. If additional water backup is received on the properties off of Penn and 70th Street the berm may need to be ex- tended to the north. The property at 6921~Penn will continue to receive water problems due to the amount of rainfall which falls within the block itself and flows downward to the lowest point behind 6921 Penn. The property owner has installed a sump pump in attempts to protect their property through that mechanism. It is recommended that the south side of 68th Street be bermed in order to prevent the water from overflowing the curb and going into the low lying areas and inundating the basements and garages of the residential properties. After this is accomplished if the problem continues to exist the city may need to consider developing an inundation area north of G8th Street on the parcel property we refer to as ~ho name' park. A motion was made at that time to ` Council. Letter No. 218 -4- June 9, 1980 The area immediately to the north of this is the Monroe Park area. In the development of Monroe/Fairwood Park consideration of a storm drainage holding area should be taken into account. This would eliminate the flooding of the homes on Lakeside Drive which occurs during heavy water.. It is recommended that this matter be deferred to the development process for Monroe/Fairwood Park. It is recommended that the low spot on the west side of Colfax Avenue just north of the 772 intersection be filled and graded up- ward in order to provide additional flood protection to the rear of the Win Stephens building. Location #25, 66th. Street and Fourth Avenue It is recommended that a curb modification be made on the north side of 66th Street in order to encourage the flow of water to Milnor Pond when G6th Street becomes inundated. It is recommended that the curb be adjusted on 66th Street on the north side so that water can run toward Legion Lake when this intersection becomes inundated. Two other locations in the city experience storm water problems during rainfalls of even a semi-serious nature. Those two locations are 76th and Washburn Avenue and 73rd Street and First Avenue. The solution to both problems involve the conveyance of the water through alternate storm drainage relief lines to other locations. Seventy- sixty Street and Washburn Avenue could justify for storm drainage purposes, the construction of a relief line to Adams Hill Park. The storm sewer line currently at that location does not quite meet the five-year storm design criteria. The improvements to the Adams Hill Park development should help this location, however, since the ele- vation of 76th Street and Washburn Avenue at the present time is very close to the elevation of Adams Hill Park Pond when it becomes saturated with water. Under the development of Adams Hill Park the pond level will be decreased in elevation so that there should be adequate gravity flow 76th Street and ti~ashburn to the new Adams Hill Park. However, when the Adams Hill Park Pond is flooded the elevation change will disappear. It is only with the addition of the pumping station at Adams Hill Park that this problem can be alleviated. The pumping station costs are in the neighborhood of $150,000 and will need to have the approval of the City of Edina in order to discharge into their storm drainage system. They are not currently in a position of being. able to handle the additional water discharge until a new storm drainage facility is built behind the 7500 York development Council Letter No. 213 -5- June 9, 1980 on Hedburg Property. A question of financing a pump station is also a matter of discussion with Edina since derivation of the Adams Hill Pond water is to a large part from Edina development. In addition, a berm on the northeast corner of the 76th and Washburn intersection is conceivable to protect the property owner at that location but it also opens the possibility of water collecting behind the berm and providing flooding potential. The 73rd Street and First Avenue intersection is another inter- section which has a flooding problem in the city. The solution to the problem was the Norby's Pond improvement and dredging which was defeated subsequent to the public hearing last year. The elevation of 73rd Street and First Avenue is the same as the elevation of Norby's Pond when the outfall pipe at Norby's Pond becomes just under half filled. For that reason the intersection will drain only as Norby's Pond is draining in allowing for additional water input into Nor by Pond. The solution suggested at the time was the dredging of Norby Pond and a pump station at the outfall in order to keep the water level below the current levels. That would have provided ade- quate gravity flow from 73rd Street and First Avenue.. Another solu- tion to the flooding problem at that location is the construction of a storm drainage line to Augsburg Pond. This storm drainage line would go west on 73rd Street away from the intersection. The cost of that storm sewer line is $140,000. The cost benefits of the line do not seem appropriate for this situation. The possibility of berming of the southwest corner also was under consideration. Two concerns which immediately arise are the access to garages for the property immediately on the corner, and the potential problem of water backup behind the berm as the water runs downhill in the south- west quadrant block. There appears to be no good solution to the problem and the only recommendation which can be made is the flood proofing of the homes. The council feels it`s desirous to spend large sums of money on this storm drainage problem we should look into the potential of purchasing the house on the southwest corner as a more cost effective way to solve the problem. The city staff will be in attendance at the meeting on June 9, in order to discuss the problems outlined above. Discussion by the council of the specific problem areas would be helpful in deter- mining how high a priority level should be placed on these measures for consideration in the capital improvement program. Respectfully submitted, Karl Nollenberger City Manager KIQ/ j f cc: Director of Community Development Director of Community Services City Engineer i ~~ ;'~ , -_ ~I, Suruuary of Potential Alternates and Recommendations Richfield Storm Slater Study & Analysis of Flooding Report Dated September 22, 197II Location 1 Potential Alternates 64th & Xerxes Area studied by Edina Location 2 Potential Alternates 69th & Xerxes, under analysis by joint Washburn Richfield-Einda study Location 3 Potential Alternates 66th Street near under analysis by joint Xerxes to Vincent Richfield-Edina study Location 4 Potential Alternates 6700 block of under analysis by Washburn Richfield-Edina study Location 5 Potential Alternates 62nd & Russell A. Conveyance to Highway 62 800 l.f. 27" diameter RCP $40,000 B. Development of Pond $60,000 C. Flood proofing $10,000 Location 6 Potential Alternates 66th & 67th, A. Conveyance (part of 68th Queen to Penn St, system) to 68th & Oliver, 1200 l.f. 36" diameter $120,000 from 68th & Oliver to P7ood Lake $500,000 (see 68th & Oliver) B. Fill alley, eliminate basement access $65,000 C. Flood proofing $15,000 Location 7 Potential Alternates 69th St. Sheridan A. Conveyance (part of 68th St. & Russell system) 700 l.f. 24" diameter $35,000 from Penn to 68th & Oliver $260,000 (see 70th & Penn) from 68th & Oliver to Wood Lake $500,000 (see 68th & Oliver) B. Change of grades, slopes or elevations of streets and/or boulevards: not applicable C. Flood proofing: less than $8,000 Location 8 Potential Alternates 70th St. Thomas A. Conveyance (to 68th St. system) 1200 l.f. 36" dia- meter $100,000 B. Modifications to street grades, slopes and/or elevations: not applicable C. Flood proofing: less than $8,000 Recommendations Solution provided by Edina through asphalt placement Cost of Recommendation Not Applicable Recommendations to be made by study results Cost of Recommendation unknown at this time Recommendations to be made by study Cost of Recommendation unknown at this time Recommendations to be made by joint study Cost of Recommendation unknown at this time Recommendations flood proofing affected garage and residences, eventual flood assistance to be provided by develop- ment of inundation area in conjunction with future commercial development in the block Cost of Recommendation Flood proofing: less than $10,000 Future inundation area: by developer, no cost Recommendations flood proofing of affected structures Cost of Recommendation less than $15,000 Recommendations flood proofing of window wells and affected structures Cost of Recommendation less than $8,000 Recommendations flood proofing affected residences and garages as applicable Cost of Recommendation less than $8,000 ... _ -----_ _--- - --- ------ -.V__-_~. .... ... ~ •f Location 9 Potential Alternates Recommendations 70th & Penn A. Conveyance (part of 68th St. flood proofing with increased system) 1800 l.f. 60" diameter sump pump size, encourage $260,000 from 68th b Oliver to Wood Lake $500,000 (see 68th & fill along Penn near 70th S*_. Cost f R Oliver) o ecommendation $30,000 B. Fill and berm along Penn from 69th to 70th $40,000 C. Fill low backyards, eliminate basement entrances $70,000 D. Flood proof with sump pump $30,000 Location 10 Potential Alternates Recommendations 72nd ~ Sheridan A. Conveyance to Adams Hill Pond flood proofing of affected 1600 l.f. 24" diameter $75,000 structures as necessary B. Storage or inundation: not Cost of Recommendation ' applicable less than $5,000 C. Flood proofing Location 11 Potential Alternates Recommendations 76th ~ Washburn A._ Conveyance to Adams Hill Pond flood proofing affected 1500 l.f. 42" diameter $170,000 residences, possible filling B. Ponding. and inundation: not or berming at NE corner. effective Significant flood depth in C. Flood proofing the intersection may inter- less than $10,000 section may interfere with traffic movements Cost of Recommendation $10,000 Location 12 Potential Alternates Recommendations 66th ~ Newton A. Conveyance (to 68th St, system) flood proofing affected 1100 l.f. 24" diameter $60,000 structures with possible from 68th & Oliver to Wood Lake retaining wall - $500,000 (see 68th & Oliver) Cost of Recommendation B. Change of street grades or elev- less than $12,000 ations: not applicable C. Filling backyard areas, eliminate - walkout $60,000 D. Flood proofing affected proper- ties with retaining wall less than 512,000 Location 13 Potential Alternates Recommendations 68th & Oliver A. Conveyance (part of 68th St. " initiate preliminary design to Newton 72 diameter to Wood Lake aimed at a composite solution $500,000 involving development of an B. Ponding in Park Area North of inundation area North of 68th 68th $40,00'0 St., to raise overflow elev- - C. Fill and berm South of 68th ation and flood proofing $20,000 properties as necessary D. Relief line to hionroe Field Cost of Recommendation inundation area, 1500 l.f. 36" $60,000 diameter $60,000 E. Flood proofing affected resid- ences: less than $15,000 Location 14 Pot ential Alternates Recommendations 63rd ~ Girard A. Conveyance (under I 35W) flood proofing as necessary $150,000 Cost of Recommendation B. Change of street and alley grade less than $8,000 or elevation: not effective C. Flood proofing: less than $8,000 Location IS Potential Alternates Recommendations 64th & Irving A. Conveyance (under Z 35W) flood proofing affected $180,000 structures as necessary II. Change of street grade or elev- Cost of Recommendation ation: not applicable less than 58,000 C. Flood proofing: less than $8,000 Location 16 Potential Alternates Recommendations 66th & Irving A. Conveyance (~~art of 68th St, flood proofing affected system) 42" diameter $200,000 residences B. Filling and berming at 66th & Cost of Recommendation James partial solution 520 000 less than $10 000 C. Flood proofing affected resid- "~.-a ences: less than 510,000 =a-., :~', Location ii ~68th ~. James ..,~_ A. ..~ Conveyance to tifith Wit. System luded in 68th & i ,-:onr::e ~.~~:, ._:.~ __.:_:,~.:__- area for excess flow volumes nc could be Cost of Recommendation B, Oliver Encourage overflow inundation $2,000 of Monroe Field $2,000 C. Flood proofing as necessary: less than $5,000 Recommendations ocation 18 Potential Alternates 30" diameter to Wood minimal No "73rd & Humboldt A. Conveyance Lake under I 35W $200,000 tential damage P f Recommendatior. B Ponding and inundation continued Cost o cost , as currently occurs: no cost no Recommendations Location 19 Potential Alternates ce (to I 35W system) flood proofing garage and 77th & Bryant A. Conveyan 000 $120 t " commercial structure B , er diame 30 Elimination of basement garage entrances Cost of Recomme.3ati:n . with flood a~aofing tthan less than $8,000 less 77th (new g g- $15,000 C Flood proofing affected struc- . tures: less than $8,000 Recommendations Location 20 Potential Alternates ance 24" diameter $20,000 flood proof affected struc- otential te i 77_1/2 & Colfax A. B Convey Fill areas subject to inunda- p ga tures invest fill West of Colfax & , tion: less than $20,000 for South of 77-1/2 C. Flood proofing affected struc- Cost of Recommendation tures and areas: less than $10,000 $8,000 Location 21 65th-66th & Pillsbury- Pleasant Recommendations Potential Alternates A, Relief line now under construe- Costcof Recommendation tion no additional cost Location 22 Potential Alternate 75th ~ Pleasant and 75th s Pleasant A. Conveyance, 76th & Pleasant to 3rd Avenue C-`; system $8,000 Ponding area for inundation g, along Lincoln Field $45,000 C, Flood proofing $15,000 Location 23 Potential Alternates e to Milner's Pond 66th & Stevens A. Conveyanc 000 $100 , B, Raise overflow elevation on by 000 $10 i , ng filling and berm Flood proofing affected struc- C. tures: less than $6,000 Location 24 Potential Alternates will be partially received by West 3rd St. ~ Area storm line sewer now under cons ru - tion near 65th & Pillsbury Location 25 Potential Alternates additional catch 66th & 4th A. Conveyance basin type leads to idilner's Pond $8,000 B, Flood proofing as necessary $5,000 Location 26 Potential Alternatives Construction of boulevard 68th & Stevens A. berms & driveway grading to reduce flood overflow $20,000 Improvement via Norby's B , Pond development (see Loca- t1On Z7) Provisu C n to r e o , time educ sump P P of area inundation $15,000 p, Flood proofing as necessary $5,000 Recommendations flood proofing affected structures Cost of Recommendation less than $15,000 Recommendations flood proofing garages Cost of Recommendation less than $6,000 Recommendations no further action Cost of Recomme: datic:t no further cost Recommendations no major action, excess flood water flow over curb to Mil- ner's Pond. Encourage flow by modifying North curb to provide overland area Cost of Recommendation $500.00 Recommendations Norby's Pond improvement with flood proofing as necessary. Investigate options involving berming of boulevard and pro- vision of backyard sump to offer cost alternates. Cost of Recommendation $5,000.00 ~.. ~M. ~~ ~:.~,, _ ~~~ . Location 27 Potential Alternates Norby's Pond A. Conveyance to i~Iilner's Pond, 84" diameter $1,300,000 B. Deepen pond and provide pumped outlet $500,000 Recommendations idorby's Pond improvements are identified as providing bene- ficial impacts on a number of problems in drainage district ~4. These include 73rd & 1st, 76th & 3rd, 67th & Columbus and 68th & Stevens as well as the pond vicinity. Improve- ment by deepening and pumped outlet is recommended. Cost of Recommendation $500,000 Location 28 Potential Alternates Recommendations 73rd & 1st Ave. A. Conveyance (to Augsberg Ponds Norby's Pond improvements $140,000 with local flood proofing as B. Improvement via Norby's Pond necessary development (see Location 27) Cost of Recommendation C. Flood proofing affected resid- less than $10,000 ences; less than $10,000 Location 29 Potential Alternates Recommendations 76th ~ 3rd Ave. A. Conveyance- not practical, no flood proofing ready outlet Cost of Recommendation B. Improvement via Norby's Pond less than $8,000 development C. Flood proofing as necessary: less than $8,000 Location 30 Potential Alternates Recommendations 67th ~ Columbus, A. Conveyance to Legion Lake, 36" Norby's Pond improvement will 66th & Columbus diameter $160,000 affect the area. Place flap B. Improvement via Norby's Pond gate at 70th and Columbus to development prevent reverse flow. Flood C. Flood proofing: $10,000 proof as appropriate. Cost of Recommendation $10,000 Location 31 Potential Alternates Recommendations 66th & Chicago A. Conveyance- catch basin type Aid intersection drainage by conduits in intersection towards modifying North curb of 66th Legion Lake $10,000 Street to provide overland B. Develop overland flow route to flow path to Legion Lake Legion Lake via curb modifica- Cost of Recommendation tions $2,000 $2,000 C. Flood proofing as necessary Location 32 Pot ential Alternates Recommendations 63rd & Bloomington A. Conveyance- 36" diameter: flood proof affected struc- $200,000 ._. tures, encourage flow to Taft B. Filling and berming boulevard Park partial solution $30,000 Cost of Recommendation C. Improvement of overland flow to- $10,000 wards Taft Park and use of park as inundation area: $10,000 D. Flood proofing: less than $8,000 Location 33 Pot ential Alternates Recommendations 63rd & 16th A. Conveyance- no practical flood proofing of affected additional outlet structures and development B. Improvement of overflow route flow towards Taft Park to Taft Park and utilization of Cost of Recommendation park as inundation area $5,000 $8,000 C. Flood proofing as necessary $5,000 Location 34 Pot ential Recommendations 71st & Cedar A. Conveyance pipe system to Wilson Improve Wilson Pond by excav- Location 35 Pond; $280,000 ation and provision of pump- 73rd & Bloomington B. Change of street grades or elev- ing station. Pond improve- Location 36 ations: not effective ments will have beneficial 73rd & 16th, 17th, C. Wilson Pond improvements: impact on this area and others 18th Avenues $270,000 nearby. Conveyance without WILSOt7 POND AREA D. Flood proofing: $20,000 pond Lowering will have re- duced effect Cost of Recommendation $270,000 Location J7 Potential Alternates Hr:commr•ndations 77th 6 Blru,minyton A. Conveyance- no ~,ractir.,l outlet flood proof affected struc- If. Ponrl d%velopmcnt in park land turc;. Initlato invcsti- Eaet of Uloomington and Horth yatu,n into park development of 77th as inundation area: and improvement as inundation unknown cost area C. Modify street boulevard to Cost of Recommendation raise overflow elevation 58,000 510,000 D. Flood proofing S5,000 Location 38 Pot ential Alternates Recommendations 68th 6 Wentworth A. Conveyance- to Wood Lake flood proofing, investi- 5180,000 gation possibility of water B. Modify street or boulevard detention on church parking grade or elevations: not lot effective Cost of Recommendation C. Flood proofing: less than 510,000 510,000 C ~, Ty_; ;.` •~`, RMi~I Jrr a.4 y;. ,:. _ . Study area and make recommenda- tion for future improvement Report to council Examine pipe in area Determine if parallel pipe system is benefitln9 drainage Report to council Preliminary minimum construction COata KO M~,ocations 11, 13, 16, 17, 20, 23, 25, 26, 31 ', ~ 25,000 Additional Probable Recommendations Locations 5, 6, 9, 13, 22, 26, 37, 38 ~ 10,000 Study costa, plans i specifications 5,000 1b tai authorized right of way Sunpzovement expendi- tuzas X570,000 CITY OF RICHFIELD, MINNESOTA Office of City Manager Council Letter No. 217 Agenda June 9, 1980 The Honorable Mayor and Niembers of the City Council City of Richfield Council Members: Subject: Discussion Relating to West Richfield Girls Softball Association Mr. Arnold Odefey, President of the West Richfield Girls Softball Association, has requested an opportunity to appear before the Richfield City Council at their June 9, 1980 city council meeting to discuss items relevant to the softball assoc- iation. I have, therefore, scheduled this appearance as the first item of business under presentations on the June 9, 1980 city council meeting agenda. Respectfully submitted, Karl Nollenberger City Manager KN/eja cc: Community Services Director CITY OF RICHFIELD, MINNESOTA Office of City Manager Council Letter No. 216 Agenda June 9, 1980 The Honorable Mayor and Members of the City Council City of Richfield Council Members: Subject: Rezoning of Property at 7645 Nicollet Avenue South At the May 27, 1980 city council meeting, the city council was advised that the petition submitted by Superamerica to ini- tiate a rezoning of the property at 7645 Nicollet from C-1, Neigh- borhood Business to C-2 General Commercial, was not valid and that the rezoning process could not continue. Second reading of the rezoning ordinance was deferred to the June 9, 1980 city council meeting, to allow Superamerica an opportunity to present evidence regarding the validity of the petition. At this time, Superamerica has not submitted evidence to the City of Richfield indicating that the petition is valid. Therefore, it is recommended that the city council reject Superamerica's petition for rezoning and terminate the rezoning process. Respectfully submitted, Karl Nollenberger City Manager KN/jf cc: Community Development Director 6 CITY OF RICHFIELD, MINNESOTA Office of C ity Manager Council Letter No. 193 Agenda May 27, 1980 The Honorable Mayor and Members of the City Council City of Richfield Council Members: Subject: Request for Rezoning at 7645 Nicollet Avenue South At the April 28, 1980 meeting of the city council, the council gave first reading approval to an ordinance amendment which would rezone the property at 7645 Nicollet Avenue South from C-1, Neigh- borhood Business, to C-2, General Commercial. This rezoning was requested by Super America to allow them to replace their existing service station on the site with a new service station store. Second reading on the rezoning ordinance has been scheduled for the May 27, 1980 city council meeting. Subsequent to the April 28, 1980 city council meeting, the staff has received evidence that the petition submitted by Super America to initiate the rezoning did not contain the required number of valid signatures. Section 3.42 subdivision 5 of the zoning ordinance, states that a rezoning may be initiated in one of two ways: 1. An amendment initiated by the city council; 2. By petition of landowners of not less than fifty percent of the land proposed to be rezoned, and by the owners of at least fifty percept of the land within three hundred feet of the land proposed to be rezoned. Upon analysis of the evidence received by the staff, it has been found that the petition contains signatures of owners of only 35.07 percent of the land within three hundred feet of the subject property. A number of signatures on the petition were those of managers of businesses or of renters, rather than of the actual owners of the property. Because the petition does not contain the required number of signatures, the city attorney has advised us that the rezoning process cannot continue in its present process of origination by petition. The council can either initiate the requested rezoning on its own, or can direct the applicant to submit a new petition with the re- quired number of signatures on it. In either case, the city review process would have to start over again including planning commission consideration of the matter. The staff is also reviewing its peti- tion verification procedures to insure that only valid rezoning petitions are processed in the future. Council Letter No. 193 -2- May 27, 1980 i It is recommended that the city council reject the applicant's petition for rezoning, and terminate the rezoning process pending submission of a valid rezoning petition from Super America. Respectfully submitted, l r Karl Nollenberger City Manager KN/jf cc: Community Development Director City Attorney ~; June 9, 1980 Honorable Mayor and City Council City of Richfield 6700 Portland Avenue Richfield, MN 55423 Subject: Rezoning Application Superamerica 7645 Nicollet Avenue South Lots 9, I0, Block 4, A. G. Boyer Co.'s Nicollet Avenue Addition I, J. M. Larkin, signed the petition for rezoning of the Superamerica property at 7645 Nicollet Avenue from C-1 to C-2 for the purpose of remodeling the existing Niobil station into a Superamerica station store . I am an authorized signer for the premises at 7717 Nicollet Avenue and the owner, Relocation Leasing Corporation. Sincerely, ,-!' ,~ ,- ~/ J. M . Larkin Relocation Leasing Corporation ~• ~ ~ BILL NO r, AMENDMENT TO APPENDIX C OF THE ORDINANCE CODE OF r THE CITY OF RICHFIELD, MIND?ESOTA CITY OF RICHFIELD DOES ORDAIN: Appendix C of the Ordinance Code of the City of Richfield, Minnesota defining the boundaries of the various zoning districts of the city enumerated in Chapter III, Part IV, Section 3.28, Subdivision 2 of such code is hereby amended in the following respects: 1. Appendix C, Section 2, is hereby amended by repealling paragraph 11. (11) CThat area lying between the center lines of Nicollet Avenue and Block 4, A.G. Bogen Com- pany's Nicollet Avenue Addition and between the centerline of 77th Street and the north line of Lot 10, Block 4, of said addition] 2. Appendix C, Section 3 is hereby amended by adding the ~' following new paragraph 76 after paragraph 75. (76) That area lying between the center lines of • Nicollet Avenue and Block 4,A.G. Bogen Company's Nicollet Avenue Addition and between the center line of 77th Street and the north line of Lot 10, Block 4, of said addition. Passed by the City Council of the City of Richfield this day of 1980. Donald J. Priebe, Mayor `~ ATTEST: Sylvia K. Bergh, Acting City Clerk /~ CITY OF RICHFIELD, MINNESOTA Office of City P~7anager Council Letter No. 215 Agenda June 9, 1980 The Honorable i~Sayor and Members of the City Council City of Richfield Council DZembers: Subject: Request by Planning Commission to Schedule Joint Planning Commission/ City Council Meeting On July 30,.1979, the city council held a joint meeting with the planning commission to discuss the concept of a revision to the residential section of the zoning ordinance. At that meet- ing the city council directed the planning commission to develop an ordinance to achieve the concepts discussed. The planning commission has now developed such an ordinance and is requesting a joint meeting with the city council to dis- cuss this ordinance. The planning commission has suggested July It is recommended that the city council set a date for this joint meeting at the June 9, 1980 city council meeting. Respectfully submitted, / _ .~ / ~ - Karl Nollenberger City Manager KN/eja cc: Community Development Director f! CITY OF RICHFIELD, MINNESOTA Office of City Manager Council Letter No. 214 Agenda June 9, 1980 ,i+` The Honorable Mayor ~,9 `'~ "~ ~'`~ ~,~~° ~~ and ~c.~ ~`~ ~,.~°~, ~~_ ~ f Members of the City Council ~~`~~ ~~ ~-n~~~r City of Richfield ~c~ ~~ ~~x,~ J s Council Members: ~~°'~rS~e~< o~~ N '7 4%' Subject: Amendments to the Community Development Block Grant Program ments were necessary because of scheduling problems with the LHN Public Improvement Project. The council has continued this publ tainties about After further study, it is now recommended that the council con- sider the following amendments. 1. 2. 5. t ion 7 9 ) to pay June 9, 1980 It is recommended that the council conduct the public hearing on this matter and approve the above mentioned amendments. Respectfully submitted, -, ~ ~ ~ Karl Nollenberger City Manager KN/jf cc: Community Services Director Community Development Director YEAR IV-VII CDBG PROJECT FUNDS AFTER PROPOSED AMENDMENTS Housing Rehabilitation Community Center Land Acquisition Planning Adams Hill Park LHN Relocation TOTAL Year IV Year V Year VI Year VII $108,559 $ 82,174 $ 72,825 $107,000 0 0 80,000 22,000 91,525 0 64,000 0 51,692 20,000 0 0 60,000 250,000 40,000 0 0 0 117,175 245,000 16,300 0 0 0 $328,076 $352,174 $374,000 $374,000 - ~c • - O O U1 r--I Ql ~' Ul lfl O N O O r--1 U1 O tf1 ~ l0 O O O O 61 O O CO a O O ~ lD ~ tIl N M O lD O O O E-1 l0 O W ~!' L(1 lD N r--i V' r-I O O N G ~D M r--I N .--1 U1 lC) r lfl r r H ,-{ M tll .--I M M O N H N H CO O O O O O O O O O O O O O ~\ p O O O r o 0 0 0 ~ ~ ~ r~ N r ~n ~J' v ~ N . o ~r r ~ \ r-i N M CO r-I H of O O O O O O O O O O O O O \ O O O O O r O O O O O 1a I v ~ ~ O l0 N r ya \ r-1 r-I M O ,'~ Cb O O O O O O 'cf' O O O O O 'd' \ r O O r ~.{ r .--I O O r'{ tCf I v~ N O ~'- O N ~+ r CL7 N to t [) \ N M W ',~ r O O O O O O cr O O N O O l0 H \ CO O ~ O r r M O l0 U O S-1 1 rs ~ ~n o r~ o co y r r O lf•) O N 'J-{ \ r{ r'{ M H 00 H r O O O O O O N O O O O O N H \ O V' c}' r o ~ ao ~ i riS r l0 N Cb ~ r ~P 61 M ~-t \ N M r H r O O O H Ol V' I.f) tf) O O O O '~i' H \ ~ ~ l0 O O O e--I r O~ l0 Ol tC) 00 M ri ~ I r$i LO t1' d' Lfl O ~ rl l0 ~ r r{ r--I N M Lfl O ~ \ N H r O O In O O O O O O O O O ~ \ O O ~Il O ~ ~ r O O ~ O O~ r ~ v ~n o o co o m ~ r U1 M r-{ Ol \ \ v +~ .~ x ~ ~ m x ~ O v v ~ ~ .x ro •r~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ s~ a .~ ~ .~ H ~ x a ~ ~ o ra ~~ a U ~'1 v U ^ F~1 x ~ ~ •r--~ r-~ -rl C-7 •}-~ U rtS ~ S-~ cd • r1 PJ +~ 27~ • r-I ~ ~ H t-~ .r..~ C7 ~'$i -t-1 R! •r1 b~ r-I ~ ~ •r{ f..' x .A v O G ~ ~ ~ •.~ ~ a .~-~ ~ •rI O r~ u) •rl ~ ~ H ~ ~o ~~ ~+ o ~ •~.~ x~+ •~+ ~ m ao G ~ ~ cn E v w ~ ~ ,C 3 O ~ ?3" ~ ~ ~ z ~, ~U~ ~cr, ~ c:., N ~ x~ za a~ a ~a aH ''r' • ,s c~.tiY: .,~,..: CITY OF RICHFIELD, MINNESOTA Office of City Manager Council Letter No. 154 Agenda April 28, 1980 The Honorable Mayor Deferred May 12, 1980 Deferred June 9, 1980 and Members of the City Council City of Richf field Council Members: Subject: Program Amendments to .the Community Development Block Grant Program Several program amendments to the Community Development Block Grant program have become necessary because of scheduling problems with the LHN Public Improvement Project approved for funding in years VI (8/1/80 - 7/31/81) and VII (8/1/81 - 7/31/82). These amend- ments do not affect the amount of funds originally budgeted in total but only affect the staging of the improvements. The LHN Public Improvement Project money is to be spent on the planned street and pedestrian improvements on Lyndale Avenue between 64th Street and Lake Shore Drive (CP 705-2) and on 66th Street between Lyndale Avenue and 35W (CP 705-3). Bid letting and construction were originally scheduled to begin prior to when the CDBG Funds would be available for these projects. To alleviate this problem staff would recommend that the following program changes be made: 1. Create a new project in year V (8/1/79 - 7/31/80) to construct public improvements in the LHN area. This project is the same as the project proposed in Year VI (8/1/80 - 7/31/81,.) and Year VII (8/1/81 - 7/31/82). 2. Transfer $80,000 from the $100,000 allocated to the Adams Hill project in Year IV to the LHN project. 3. Transfer $87,000 of the $250,000 allocated to the Adams Hill Park project in Year V to the LHN project. 4. Transfer $125,000 of the $125,000 allocated to the LHN project in Year VI to the Adams Hill Park project. 5. Transfer $80,000 of the $80,000 allocated to the Community Center in Year VI to the LHN project. 6. Transfer $122,000 of $245,000 allocated to the LHN pro- ject in year VII to the Community Center project. These actions will result in no change in the amount of funds allocated to the LHN project. The Adams Hill Par]{ project will have $42,000 less than its original allocation and the Community Center would have $42,000 more than its original allocation. If the bids come in at the engineer's estimate, the Adams Hill Park Project is over budgeted, due to recurring Grants from two sources. ~. Council Letter No. 154 -2- April 28, 1980 The city council should conduct the public hearing since we published the legal notice a few weeks ago. Due to the uncertainty currently imposed on the Lyndale Project and the Adams Hill project it is recommended that action be delayed until a later date. It is hoped that final resolution of the problem can be made at the Nlay 12 meeting. Respectfully submitted, Karl Nollenberger City Manager KN/jf cc: Community .Development Director Community Services Director r CITY OF RICHFIELD, MINNESOTA Of f is e of C ity Manager Council Letter No. 213 Agenda June 9, 1980 The Honorable Mayor and Members of the City Council City of Richf field Council Members: Subject: Request for A Variance at 6326 Logan Mr. Byron Kasa.has submitted a request for a reduce the required sideyard setback from five fee fisting one foot to allow an existing structure to the zoning ordinance. The property is located at Avenue and is zoned "R" single family residential. History Several years 6 Logan constructed a eolid fence on .y. Recently, a partially open the fence, and the roof is attached to the main building. The staff has determined that the roof is an accessory structure attached to a main building. Therefore, according to the ordinance, the structure is a part of the main building. Because the roof is attached to the fence, the fence becomes part of the accessory structure and it must meet the building setback requirement of five feet rather than the fence setback requirement of one foot. ivv Uu1iaing permit nas been issued for the roof structure and it is in violation of the building code because proper founda- tion frost footings were not constructed underneath supports. The structure may have to be moved to install proper footings, in which case the structure could be moved back four feet so that a variance would not be necessary. This would still leave a space 13.5 feet wide under the roof structure. Zoning Ordinance Requirements Section 3.30, subdivision 4, states lot area and yard require- ments. Section 3.40 subdivision 6, lists three conditions that must be met before granting variances. Section 3.27, subdivision 3 subparagraphs 27 and 30 define structure and accessory use. Proposal -~ e Council Letter No. 213 -2- ,Tune 9, 1980 Section 3.39, subdivision 3 lists requirements that apply to all accessory buildings. The staff has reviewed the proposal against the three conditions that must be met before granting variances and found the following: 1. That there are~ecial circumstances or conditions that exist affecting the particular land not common to other -_ properties in this or similar districts. There are no special conditions affecting this particular property. This is a-typical size lot and is not significantly different from any other lot in the City of Richfield. 2. That the < reservat anting of the application is necessary for n and en~ovment of substantial property rights. Denial of this variance does not preclude the existing property use. The structure could be altered so that a variance is not necessary. 3. That the granting of the application will not materially and adversely affect the health or safety of persons working or residing in the neighborhood and will not be materially s and to protect public welfare. Since the property owner to the south has a driveway adjacent to the addition, it is the opinion of the city staff that snow removal, automobile fumes, and noise are po- tential hazards in this proposal. Also should the property owner to the south build to the minimum setback lines, the structures be maintained. Staff Recommendation nted. It is the staff's opinion that to s, the required setback of five feet should Setbacks should be maintained uniformly throughout the city and only when the three conditions for granting variances are met should required setbacks be varied. Because the three conditions for granting variances are not met, the staff recommends that this request for a variance be denied. Planning Commission Recommendation or improvements in the neighborhood. Respec`'tfully submitted, Karl Nollenberger City Manager .- a•~. ~~ . r--- revues:. for variance ©/ ~/' L V j' , ~ 4 T Owner/ pplica,- (- Special lise CJ Apartment Use ~LC {~.1=~ ~ t--i} Ci tv ~:.is . Phone r^cr the prcpelrYy or Land lcca~ed ate: - =ess ~ ~ ~~ ~. ~~/zi ~~ ~~=ire- ~ C?, °lat L~. ~~; j ~ ~ ~srcel /_~~~? Su~a;.:i.sion: (J~}~QC) C.~K-~ `~~1~~~:~'4A~i~~ ~ S1ac ~,~ .t'", ~, ?at ~Cf eve C°:'.eral d1;iZ_'IS~.'?P.S Of pr•oaerty ~a~`aC~•?d all P.~CeSSai.~ dr3~':1nCS, P'.3~5~ . E:._s ~ing use or land S.<~-~.:i~, E::"~.s.ing zc;:ing: ~.~-i~u~~i.__ E::` s ~_rg bui ldi cs?~ Yes ~ ~:o . PrcccsFd changes in use:~"~,r'~-jam ~/~t'L'S~u< -, Prcpcsed c::angns in son~ng f!~?c~1/~ Varia::ce requested ~j~ Jam" L~'.~/'~iy,ti,-~_ !h.' S~"t~i.~_ ~-G~ ~' ~',(1f-- 7~` ~ ~v`' n`_~..c.S:1 alb ncr?ssar. C~ :'.:1:.~5 ,..`J" ~.... S1'`.E3 ~: ~~C~.,,.~n+y '.`....:15 ADalic4r.ts Si~natur~ ~~^-~ %4 i ree~~f.ecei~~cd r>~ ,,,,~ ~~ ^eceint /xL,~~ ~ Date p . ~ ('' ~ 1 ~ ~ i 1 ~ REQUEST FOR VARI fCE OF ~~ ~% ~~D~ ,L`.r- Lik-r~ ~f~~;,~,<5~~ ~ FOR PURPOSE OF ,~;-T(u ~:~ ~;,r~ Legal Description: We, the undersigned, being owners of immediate adjoining land as above described, do hereby concur with the variance as requested. Signature of Owners - Address Leal Description ~ ~' ~' - i y,r 1 i~ '~ ~ ~J ~. ~ 1~~~r.'t~ 5 ~~ n / , / c ~}-G~. riLCh~l~ .~ L ~ ~ ~ TJ' ~'`- J • , . . ;' i ' ~ I y • ~ I I I . .: • -- ~ , .. -, ~ L I - n ~_~ ~ : ~ [S {5 ~ ~ °1 v ~ : I f_' a --a bid i • 4, v ~ ~ - 67th P-ETITIC~@~ ~P sT zln zla 2cr :~~~ _ --~ ~- 5 4 3 ~~ ( 21 2100 2031 202a 2015 ;0(`•-• ~ .~\ ,y r rF 8 ~~ ~~REST DRIVE I~ 2009 07 2 ~ ? - ~ ^ ^ ~ r^ ~, Q^ ~ 5, 4 l 3 2 I N n 6 7 8 9 f0 Z 2oza~ zo ~2 " ~. - - 68th ~.Q' ~~ m ~o ~~ '( 0 Z ~ m ~.._. 3 N 4 N W Z 5 ` ` =t"'1 .: 01 ~ r J r " ^ ~~ 1 ^ W 15 2 ~] 3 ' M 3 4 ^ ~ - -. (~ s ~ N ^ 10 .9 ~ p N M ^ ~ y , !i. ~ N M M A m []6 M ^ 'S m O ^ ~ ~o Q ....4-. - _ -69th 21 a Q W ;~ - `~~'d' ~ N- 4~. -- N .I~ ~' ~ _ -~_ 3 ~ ~ ~~~ ----- 7~ a r~ ~ ~6~ 0 z Q ~~ OP Q .J S T. 1 j. ,~ ,. i / ~ ', I o ~~ 13- ~ ~+ -2 r-~~ s - J~• ~ ~~ '"~~~~ 8 •''~'~ '~;: Vii: ~~ -- - -- ! T- ---- (,j,~ . -/ L _ N N L-. ::.:• ....... •. n !i,{ S: 5ri#:kff: ~':.~:. ~~ w1 -_1 I (l l~.' M '1/•-~1 _- __ < } _ O ~. ~-- o f --~ I 9 ~--a m-1 ..II 10 ^ ~ ~ C In __ . _. `a --1_.... -._-~- 0 0 _ _. - _ --~~__ _ _ S T. _ --- _ zo I -- N ^~ o Q 2I 2 n ~ O ~ ~ I9 12 ~ I ~ _ _--~-- _ ; ___ . _. _ _. _"_ ._ J ~1 0 ~ ----1_ y U ^ (9 N Q - ~f}A Signatures on ~e•;tion ) -_ T _ _ s U tt--~~l-JI_. ~ _ " °_' I-J J 8 __ 15 6 ~ °~ ~.: 13 r ~ ~ -,, - is ' 4- . ~ a N '° "' L-! 14 ~ 7 ^ N N ~ J _ 11 ' _1y~-~_._ . - N ^ 5 N . ~(_-1-.__ ..- 1 T i8 ~p N N ^ ' 13 ~ LJ 13~-~__D 0 v ^ lo~ `Jry ~ 1J C 1^ ~ J =~ ~ r n ^ . ~ -`7 12 O - N n D 9 2 _. ~ ~, - -- 3 T ~ ti ['1 ~__.I_ 9 "' ^ ~ '" I2 a ~~ LJ t2~ A _ ~~ N ~ 1 1 ; ~ ~. ~ r~ ~ ~ • ~ a _ __ 4 - _ - 7- :. 4 - _ a. J ^ ~ ( "l ~ ~. ~~ ^ I ~ 1 _ ~ ~--_- ~ - - E ~ ~ -_- ~ LAND USE - M MAP ~ L W _ 67 t h ~~I 5 ~OREST . W >- a ~. Z 5 {a-~ s a W r i--J Z n• ~ ~'c _- .:._ __ I z0~ 3 ~` N z s -._-.~ ° 68th Z Q 0 z C~ O J s 8 ~ i-~ ~ ~- z f-,~ ° 17 . ~~ 0 Y N ~ ~ IS ~- 7 ~ r _~ . N` ~ ~ _.A~~~~----- i 1 ~ - 1 L N _ ~- v ~ N -~ ~• r~ r._, ~ ~ r L- I~ ~ - ~t ~ J ., a I ~./ L~ m ~ ~ + L~ 4 13 `~ ~ I 1 .°~ - - - l.J /~/ '_" Q ~ i ~ ? t I ~ 10 `_..1 m --L- ,o ~~~ o ~ _ ~ ~~ All _Land Use and Zonin is sTe - ^ ~ ^, g --~- _ ,~ h 2aQ ~ ~ ~ ° °~ ~21 ? Single Family Residential ~~19 - ^ n ^ o o ~ 2° 3 --~ - - -° J _[] a le.z ~I m S o _ - 5 N ----- - -- ~ - ----, 4O ! ~ T N t"1 N ^ __~ s r. ~ ~ 15 6 ~~ ~ ~ _ ~ l J ~2 ____ _ - lJ _~„ r N Q ---_- ~N N~j t4~7 r ~ lJ N n 1, N~~ II' N ~ L' p ^ _ ~ n " g _ _ ,~ F' r '~° w j ~~ ~ ^ 13 : ^ 1 1 ~ J : ~ 8 Q ^ 8 8 ^ 3 s.aa2 ..,.._ .r n ._ , O _ .- _ ~ . _ _ - - .~. o ZONING MAP_ S T. ` g \ ~~ / +J -- --- - / - JJ `' ~N- 4` - ~ti a r I C~`, - ~, "; ~-~ ~ ~ ° - - i 7 ----- r j i ~a, v V r• \ S T. 4 _ - ~ to - 17 ; - -- ~ (,v o ---; ~C~ v ~ 17 _ ^~t „ ~ 7~ a G s~ N 1 ~ s ^ 12 a ~ 4 E f Zp 0 r~ I~.~ I . ~ . I ~~ °' ~I .. ~ 39' ~ 1 ~, I I I ~, ~ ~ I I. ~ m ~ r0 I III o? _ ~ m „ {,~ ~'+ ° °1 I ~ma I ~, ~ ~y ~ Z I l ~ ~ `° ~ m ~ I c ~ 5' rn 3 m ~ Z C I -• I ~ I 11.6' m ~ , ` I '-~--17.1' 31.1'-~ I I , ~ I ~ I~ I ° I ~'` II w i ~ I I ' ~° I i I II ~ i I I I. I I I :_~I._._. ._._I._.I~ L O G A N A V E. cn rn r Z s .~ Y w: ',: ; ~'; r=te,, s- ~ .~"~ e~ ~ . _~ /~ ~. CITY OF RICHFIELD, MINNESOTA Office of City Manager Council Letter No. 212 Agenda June 9, 1930 The Honorable Mayor and Members of the City Council City of Richf field Council Members: Subject: Inclusion of Nicollet Avenue (CSAH 52) In the FAU System We have been advised that Hennepin County is planning to make improvements to Nicollet Avenue in the City of Blooming- ton, using FAU funds. By adding Nicollet Avenue to the FAU system, FAU funds may be used for future improvement projects in the City of Richfield. The city will not lose any review powers due to the designation of Nicollet Avenue in the FAU system. It simply makes another funding source available. Nicollet Avenue meets the capacity and classification criteria to quality for FAU designation both in the City of Bloomington and the City of Richfield. Hennepin County has requested that the Richfield City Council approve a resolution supporting the FAU designation for Nicollet Avenue. It is recommended that the city council approve the attached resolution supporting the inclusion of Nicollet Avenue (CSAH 52) to the FAU system. Respectfully submitted, Karl Nollenberger City Manager KN/ej a cc: Community Development Director r RESOLUTION N0. A RESOLUTION SUPPORTING THE APPLICATION OF INCLUSION OF CSAH 52 WITHIN THE CITY OF RICHFIELD TO THE F.A.U. SYSTEM. WHEREAS, The City Council of the City of Richfield is the official governing body of the City of Richfield; and WHEREAS, The City Council encourages and participates with improvements to obtain adequate transportation facilities in the Richfield area; and WHEREAS, The Hennepin County Department of Transportation submittal for inclusion of CSAH 52 into the F.A.U. System is within the City of Richfield; and WHEREAS, The City Council of the City of Richfield concurs with the submittal by Hennepin County within the City of Richfield's boundaries: N06~J, THEREFOP,E, BE IT RESOLVED BY THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF RICHFIELD IN REGULAR P•1EETING ASSEMBLED, That the Transportation Advisory Board and the Metropolitan Council are hereby advised that the City of Richfield supports inclusion of CSAH 52 (Nicollet Avenue) into the FAU System within the City of Richfield. Passed and adopted this day of Attest: ity Cler 19 ayor ti ~~~'~~~• .:6s .... .... .. L /G b CITY OF RICHFIELD, MINNESOTA Office of City Manager Council Letter No. 211 Agenda June 9, 1980 The Honorable Mayor and Members of the City Council City of Richfield Council Members: Subject: Authorization for Payment of the City's Share of Traffic Signal Constructopm at Portland Avenue and C.S.A.H. No. 62 Crosstown On August 14, 1978, the city council approved plans and speci- fications for traffic signal construction at the intersection of Port- land Avenue and the Highway 62 Crosstown. The traffic signals will provide for safer and more efficient traffic flow at this interchange. At that meeting, the city council also approved an agreement with Hennepin County in which the City of Richfield agreed to participate in the construction costs. The county has now awarded the traffic signal construction contract to the low bidder, Hoffman Electric Company, in the amount of $98,000. Richfield's share of the construction costs will amount to approx- imately $3,161.22. The city's portion will come from the state road construction fund. It is recommended that the city council approve the attached resolution authorizing the payment of the city's share of this con- struction in the approximate amount of $3,161.22. Res ectfully submitted, ~0 '~~ Karl Nollenberger City Manager KN/jf cc: Community Development Director r RESOLUTION NO. RESOLUTION AUTHORIZING PAYMENT OF CITY'S SHARE OF COUNTY PROJECT NO. 7519 FOR CSAH 35 AND CSAH 62. WHEREAS, on August 14, 1978 the City Council approved agreement No. PW-39-20-77, Project No. 7519 and authorized the Mayor and City Manager to sign said agreement for traffic signal construction at Portland Avenue and Highway 62 Crosstown intersection; WHEREAS, the City in said participation agreement agreed to pay a portion of construction costs for said project; WHEREAS, Hennepin County has awarded the traffic signal construction contract to Hoffman Electric Company; NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED, the City Council hereby authorizes payment in the approximate amount of $3,161.22 be made to Hennepin County as the City's share of Project No. 7519. Passed by the City Council of the City of Richfield this 9th day of June, 1980. Donald J. Priebe, Mayor ATTEST Sy via K. Berg City Clerk ;.:~: ..~~-~r _ /6~ CITY OF RICHFIELD, MINNESOTA Office of City Manager Council Letter No. 210 Agenda June 9, 1980 The Honorable Mayor and Members of the City Council City ~ of Richfield Council Members: Subject: Request for Authorization to Extend Deadline for Submission of Compre- hensive Plan to the Metropolitan Council The Metropolitan Land Planning Act passed by the state legislature in 1976 requires that each community and school dis- trict within the Twin City seven-county metropolitan area prepare a comprehensive plan and submit it to the Metropolitan Council for review. The deadline for submitting this comprehensive plan is July 1, 1980. The Metropolitan Land Planning Act allows the Metropolitan Council to grant extensions to this deadline. The Metropolitan Council has recently adopted policies governing the granting of extensions because of the large number of communities which will not be able to meet the July 1, 1980 deadline. The Metropolitan Council will only grant one extension to each commun- ity. The city staff has been developing an updated comprehensive plan for Richfield, but its completion has been delayed by the city's administrative reorganization and because of staff turnover in the Community Development Department. Because of this delay, we will not be able to meet the July 1, 1980 deadline. The Metropolitan Land Planning Act mandates that we submit our comprehensive plan to the county, the school district and ad- jacent communities for their review a minimum of six months prior to our submittal to the Metropolitan Council. with a one-year ex- tension this would leave us six months to finish the development of the comprehensive plan, and complete planning commission and city council review processes. The city staff feels that a one- year extension would be sufficient. Therefore, it is recommended that the city council approve the attached resolution requesting a one-year extension to the sub- mitall deadline. Respectfully submitted, !V 1 ~\ ~ V Ci~4.~1~ C~~~\ ~~ Karl Nollenberger cc: Community Dev. Director City Manager r RESOLUTION N0. RESOLUTION REQUESTING A ONE YEAR EXTENSION OF REQUIRED SUBMITTAL DATE OF COMPREHENSIVE PLA1`d TO THE METROPOLITAN COUNCIL BE IT RESOLVED by the City Council of the City of Rich- field, Minnesota as follows: 1. That the City of Richfield hereby requests that the Metropolitan Council grants Richfield a one year extension of the deadline for submittal of a comprehen- sive plan pursuant to the requirements of the Metropolitan Land Planning Act (Minnesota Statutes 473.851 - 473.872). 2. That city staff is authorized to take all necessary actions to carry out this request. Passed by the City Council of Richfield this 9th day of June, 1980. Donald J. Priebe, Mayor ATTEST: Sylvia K. Bergh, Acting City Clerk CITY OF RICHFIELD, MINNESOTA Office of City Manager Council Letter No. 209 _J" r~ ~' C ~ ~<~`, ~~ The Honorable Mayor i~~S° a and q ~,,~~~~ J 2 Members of the City Council City ~ of Richfield ~~.~`J t~`` Council Members: Q}`~ ~, f~ J r ~~ ~'- C Subject: Monroe-Fairwood Park Development At a previous c ouncil under- roe-Fairwood .LV~a~.l.vii~. ivu iticty tCC.:d11 ~ud~ tiie city ccuncil mez witn the Richfield School Board to discuss the potential of developing Sheridan School/Park, or West Middle School as a softball complex for use by the West Richfield Girls Softball Association. At the lan play mere, tnat it was a permanent improvements were At the council meeting, the city council discussed the possibility of doing a citizen survey of the Monroe-Fairwood Park area in order to attempt to ascertain the reaction of the citizens to the continued use of Monroe-Fairwood Park as a softball complex. The city staff was then directed to develop a survey which could be reviewed by the city council and West Richfield Girls Softball Association prior to mailing. In attempts to put together such a survey, it became evident to the city staff that it was very diff- icult, if not impossible, to devise a survey which would adequately inform the neighborhood of all the options which exist for a neigh- borhood park. The Monroe-Fairwood Park area will serve a large neighborhood in West Richfield. With the chanaina concebts of aware come Fairwood Park previ It seemed equitable future, that a deci Agenda June 9, 1980 ~~ many citizens are not parks before they be ing process. tide coup he citizens were well temporary home until such time as made to Monroe-Fairwood. The Monroe-Fairwood Park development is scheduled in the Capital Improvement Program for 1981 and 1982. There is $50,000 included in the 1981 budget with the remaining $360,000 in the 1932 budget. In the normal course of events, the city would be under- going the intensive neighborhood development process which we have Council Letter No. 209 -2- June 9, 1980 utilized for all neighborhood parks in the late summer of 1981. Originally, it was our hope that a decision on the softball diamond location could be made in early 1980 so that the city could construct them during spring of 1980. This would allow the softball diamonds to have two full years of growing potentia•1 prior to play. It is evident at this point that that potential is now past, and the first time for construction of the new softball diamonds (if they are built at all) would be the spring of 1981. These two factors together would allow the city to undergo the intensive neighborhood park de- velopment process for Monroe-Fairwood Park in late summer or early fall of 1980. Any council member who has been involved in this process in the past, is aware of the neighborhood participation .elements which are part of that process. A full description of all of the alternatives in the design of a park are described to the citizens and they then go into the actual park design process. In addition, there are storm drainage considerations for the Monroe- Fairwood Park area which must be taken into account if any relief is to be given to storm drainage areas which have historically been a problem in that neighborhood. Completion of the neighborhood park planning process in the fall of 1980 would provide a master plan for development of Monroe-Fairwood which could be finalized and be- gun in 1981 with completion in 1982. This also would allow adequate time for any other decisions to be made on the softball diamond situation. It seems to me that initiation of the neighborhood planning process in 1980, rather than waiting until 1981 is the best solution to maximizing citizen input in the park planning process. If a survey is undertaken at this time without adequate alternatives available to the neighbors, they may very well be freezing themselves neighborhood r importance. parkJplanner~could be-retained for that element of~the city liquor profits fund in 1979 exceeded its original and can easily finance this appropriation. transferring funds from The special xeve7iue ruiia w .~~~ ment Fund in the amount of $10,000 for Monroe-t'`airwood program. The expectations Respectfully submitted, ~, Karl Nollenberger City Manager KN/eja cc: Community Community Services It is recommended that the city council direct the city z t TRANSITORY ORDINANCE NO. AN ORDINANCE PROVIDING FOR THE EXPENDITURE OF MONEY FROM THE SPECIAL REVENUE FUND FOR CERTAIN CAPITAL IMPROVEMENTS City of Richfield does Ordain: Section 1. It is found and determined to be necessary and expedient for the city to expend money from The Special Revenue Fund for the making of capital improvements listed in Section 2 hereof, for which the city would be authorized to issue general obligation bonds. Section 2. The capital improvements and amounts of expenditures for such improvements which are authorized to be paid from The Special Revenue Fund under Section 7.12, subd. 2 of the City Charter, are as. follows: Park Improvements $10,000 Section 3. The expenditure herein authorized shall be made pursuant to such contracts as are authorized from time to time by council action. Passed by the City Council of the City of Richfield this 9th day of June, 1980. Donald J. Priebe Mayor ATTEST: -_ Sylvia K. Bergh Deputy City Clerk /~ CITY OF RICHFIELD, MINNESOTA Office of City Manager Council Letter No. 208 Agenda June 9, 1980 The Honorable Mayor and Members of the City Council City of Richfield Council Members: The resolution requested bids for based on the following options: The resolution indicated that the order in which the options were listed, as above, would be the order of preference of the city. Advertising for proposals followed and a bid opening was held on May 14, 1980, with the following bids being received: 1. John Oksness, an individual with real estate and building construction experience, bid $1.00 for the purchase of the structures. He proposes to remove them from 7301 Xerxes Avenue to 6444 21st Avenue to rehabilitate them under the FHA Section 235 program. (Option No. 1). 2. John Oksness bid $4,000 for the purchase of the structures, relocation to 6444 21st Avenue, rehabilita- tion, and sale without regard to our housing programs. (Option No. 2). Subject: Minutes, Tabulation of Bids and Award of Contract for Removal of Structure • From 7301 Xerxes Avenue to 6444 21st Avenue Council Letter No. 208 -2- June 9, 1980 3. zany bid $4,600 (Option No. 4} . In evaluating the proposals, the following additional informa- tion should be considered: 1. The value of the structures at the time of acquisition for future park expansion in -1973 was approximately $20,000. The total acquisition cost was $30,619. The monies were provided by special revenues. The city has been able to recover some cost in monthly rental charges. Selling the structures means a cost writedown from what the city originally paid for the structures. A recent appraisal of the structures for moving established their value between $2,000 and $3,000. This value assumes no subsidy program is in- volved in the subsequent resale. 2. After relocation to 6444 21st Avenue, if the house is resold using the FHA Section 235 program with Section 8 income limits, the city will receive credit from the Metropolitan Council for providing additional family housing and for using local money to acquire the structure. The use of local money gives Richfield a priority when other applications for federal funds are evaluated. 3. The FHA Section 235 sale price maximum for a three bedroom home is $45,600. After expenses for moving, rehabilitation, and land acquisition, Mr. Oksness will have an estimated profit of $1,500, a small margin for the amount of expense involved. 4. Even though park development has been delayed because of a funding freeze, the house will have to be removed prior to park redevelopment. The present tenants are moving out of the house, so it would be appropriate to act now. Because the structure will be relocated within the city, the tnose resiaences on act~acent properti fisting condition of the structure has building inspector, and his report is letter. To provide future assistance structures are similar to those alrea~ of 6444 21st Avenue, an advertisement Sun indicating public testimony would at the June 9, 1980 city council meet property owners have been notified by at the meeting to discuss the issue. ~s (map attacneci) . The ex- been evaluated by the city'•s attached to this council in evaluating whether the ~.y located in the vicinity was placed in the Richfield be received on this proposal ing. In addition, adjoining mail that they could appear Council Letter No. 208 -3- I t is the r the structures will ity the 1 /v l T '~ - 1 t ures are compatible with adjoining buildings and authorize the movi of this structure to 6444 21st Avenue. A resolution authorizing the sale of structures and the relocation of those structures to 6444 21st Avenue is attached for council consideration. Respectfully submitted, ~_, i~~~~ Karl Nollenberger City Manager June 9, 1980 KN/ej a CITY OF RICHFIELD Bid Opening May 14, 1980 7301 Xerxes Housing Proposal Pursuant to requirements of Resolution No. 1015, a meeting of the Administrative Staff was called by Assistant City Manager, Joyce L. Wilde, who announced that the purpose of the meeting was to receive, open and read aloud, sealed bids for the 7301 Xerxes Housing Proposal as advertised in the official newspaper on April 30, 1980. Present: Joyce L. Wilde, Assistant City Manager Dennis Kraft, Community Development Director Bruce Nordquist, Community Development Specialist Bruce Palmborg, Housing & Redevelopment Specialist Sylvia K. Bergh, Acting City Clerk The following bids were submitted and read aloud: BIDDER AND BID FOR BID FOR SECTION 235 DESIGNATED REMOVE BID SECURITY DEMOLITION PURCHASE OPTION CHOSEN CITY LOT FROM CITY Minnesota Lumber 10% Bid Bond $4,600 No No No Yes, Option 4 John Oksness -- $1,000 Cashier Ck. No~ $1.00 Yes Yes No, Option 1 John Oksness $1,000 Cashier Ck. No $4,000 No Yes No, Option 2 S The Assistant City Manager announced that the bids would be tabulated and considered at the regular city council meeting of June 9, 1980. Sylvia K. Bergh Acting City Clerk RESOLUTION NO. A RESOLUTION AUTHORIZING THE SALE OF STRUCTURES LOCATED AT 7301 XERXES AVENUE SOUTH AND THE RELOCATION OF THOSE STRUCTURES TO 6444 21st AVENUE SOUTH WHEREAS, the City of Richfield is the owner of certain property located at 7301 Xerxes Avenue South, said property being legally described as follows: Lot 20, Block 1, Penn Lake Terrace Second Addition, County of Hennepin WHEREAS, in furtherance of the Adams Hill park develop- ment, the structures at that location must be removed from the property; and, WHEREAS, the City authorized the advertising for proposals for the removal or demolition of the structures at 7301 Xerxes Avenue on April 28, 1980, and proposals have been received; and, WHEREAS, one proposal was received for purchase of the structures, relocating and rehabilitating them within Richfield, and re-selling the property under the provisions of the Federal Housing Administration (FHA) 235 program; and, WHEREAS, an alternate bid provided for the purchase in the amount of $4,000 if an FHA 235 committment could not be obtained and would also result in moving and rehabilitation; and, WHEREAS, the structure to be moved is compatible with those adjacent to the lot at 6444 21st Avenue South; and, WHEREAS, this approval calls for the removal of the structures to occur on or before June 30, 1980. NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED by the City Council of the City of Richfield: 1) That the City Manager is granted authority to execute the sale of the structures at 7301 Xerxes Avenue South to John Oksness: a) in the amount of $1.00 if the resale of the structures results in participation in the FHA Section 235 mortgage assistance program; or, b) that the sale of the structures to John Oksness in the amount of $4,000.00 is approved if an FHA committment is not obtained. r 2) That the structures can be relocated to the property at 6444 21st Avenue South and rehabilitated in accordance with local code requirements. Passed by the City Council of the City of Richfield, Minnesota, this 9th day of June, 1980. Donald J. Priebe, Mayor ATTEST: Sylvia K. Bergh, Acting City Clerk ~ i 1 i T~_..`ti'~~.. ~ ... .. -. -... ~ .~_ 63rd ..- ---------- ------------ . STR ET... ~~/ GO } 19 r.,v}~: ' 16 Cam) _ ~ F) IT 4.L) ~ w i~ 16 ' Q ') IS~V I) -14(~p) , ~) 0 13 (p' ,°~ 22 21 1) 7 18 8 3~) 17 :31).9- -~- ~. b = 15 (31~ -~+~~ 11 14 ~jG) 60 w Z w Q .• ° c-13~ 22ta ° • (~~ 4 I 2 ~\ 5 20 ~'~l eel ~~ Ly~ 9 6 . l~ 1 l0 15 ~o\ ~\ tI 14 `q): °S, ,i2 0 13 ~; 1 ~ :.s4 ~) ' J , p S~ T ~ ~y ,~ ~~ =(t = ~3~ v~ i35-' 1 ZI '~~)3 21 20 ~ _ ~1~ 4 20 Cky~ ~ , ~~ S 19 ,~'' ~~ ~w ~ , C3q~ 7 = 17 ~~ .,f • .,. ~~ ~. o ~„n 9 0 15 1~ .~r ~ ~ ~. 2~ ~ = i~ Ip 1 1 14.. : ~ ,,~ fir:: ='~E. :60 .; ~ ~qJ IS ~ ~ 24~1~~ o ~~) 2 0 23 1~ l~) 3 22 \~4) 4 21 l~3) g~} 6 19 ~`l~, ' ~po ~ l8 `,off (col e = ~~ ~w~ , 1~~ 9 --IS n~) -lo -mss---~ = Gpa) II 14 `41~: o ( 12 0 13 ~1) :~ c O N Go ~c~~>3= ~ 22b o • (~L) 4 ~3) 5 21 20 5$) Cas) 7 18 51,) C~,) a 17 (5 s) ~~ 10 15 C53~ M) a I4 ~51) ~(~~ 12 0 13~) ~t ~n `K~~1 I, ,n 23 bb~ =°n 2 h 22 ~~L~ ~ ~~ 3 21 ~~ • ~~ q = 20 CV) : ,~> 6 la 158 <h°) 7 17 51) , Cy~~ a Is s~) of ~ 9 ~ =n \y i' o IS SS) ~ !~4 ' bo ~0 50 b0 6 5 ~) „~„p - 11 ; ~) 12 . 13 4.r l - 6~ v c N N ~. C3; do ~ 6 ~ 9 ~'31~ W ~ \~z) 8 Q ~ 33)9 =(x.41 b N D Z Q N ~l bo o - ~o J. by ~o \1 ~a~) ~_ p II 12 L 14 .. 6o Go ~'~ II Gi ~~ ~ 1 ~•4g~ pl~l "J~ ..,_..+ouirt•.'.an~Ci;. 'tin ,:..i.c.~,- .,,~:: ~t«e:.:.~ii~.•: s6S~ aJ w Z w a o . ~ 3 ~ ,. o 22 r, ~`) 4 21 . ,~~ 5 ~~ lb~ 6 ~ - la - -1; - I~(v~l ~) 8 ~ tip) 17 ' - (7a) 10 15 l~ I I ys) la ~1~) ~ 2 z Cti4 13 , ,°n ~ti) I~ ~ 24'Q„g1 J ° ,1'j~ 2 0 23(q~ ° \~"~ 3 22 q3) ~j5)4 21,1) ' h~~ 5 20~q> : ~J......_ ~~ \\ 6 19 e C~4}~ 8 ~~~ 17 : <40~ 9 +~ ~1) 16 (~1> IO ~ ~~~ I S ~'>~ II rl ~5~ 14 ~~~3),zi2 ( w \~a~, 13 , 6444 .21st Avenue i 5 6 e 9 to I••I~ 12 ~ ~_ 11 3 3A 4 ~~ s' CITY OF RIC}iFIELD, MINNESOTA Office of City Manager Council Letter No. Agenda The Honorable Mayor and Members of the City Council City of Richfield Gentlemen: Subject: Dwelling to be Moved - 7301 Xerxes Ave. S. Richfield, MN 55423 The Department of Inspection has surveyed the above dwelling proposed to be moved to 6444 21st Avenue South, New Ford Town. The following items were found as deficiencies and need to be brought to code compliance, also energy factor needs upgrading. The following items will need to be installed to meet compliance to allow structure to be moved and relocated at 6444 21st Avenue South in the City of Richfield, Mn. 1. 2. 3. 4. 5. 6. 7. 8. 9. 10. 11. 12. 13. 14. 15. 16. 17. 18. 19. Install new foundation, floor and reinstall basement stairs. Install proper beam post footing. Repair siding as needed after moving. Re-insulate attic and rim box (~185U) and supply ventilation. Install new furnace. Install duct system. Install new water heater. Install new laundry tub. Install new water line. Install new house sewer. Reconnect plumbing line to services. Reconnect water line to services. Relocate existing electric service. Rewire dwelling as per State Code, 1978 N.E.C.A. Grade, backfill, finish grade and sod. adequate attic Landscape, shrubs, etc. as per Chief Inspector and applicant. Acquire final inspection before occupancy. Owner or agent to secure permits. Furnish city with performance bond in the amount of refurbishing and yard cost. ~/ ~/ H ~ Kueh 1 Chief Inspector s .. 6440 - 21st Ave. (Lot 14,B1ock 11 NFT) ~~_. i;'f 6500 - 21st Ave. (Lot 23,B1k 4 NFT) 6501 - 21st Ave. (Lot l,Blk___5 .N~T~_ --b-44~ - ~~.th_~~.v~.-- These five houses are adjacent to the site at 6444 - 21st Ave. t 12 ,Block 11 NFT) 6501 - 20th Ave. (Lot l,Block 4 NFT) v ~ c ,7301 Xerxes Avenue South Site at 6444 - 21st Avenue South CITY OF RICHFIELD, MINNESOTA Off ice of City Manager Council Letter No. 207 Agenda June 9, 1980 The Honorable Mayor • and Members of the City Council City of Richf field Council Members: Subject: Report on The City of Richfield's 4th of July Celebration Council Member Bunce has requested that an item be sched- uled on the June 9, 1980 city council agenda relating to the 4th of July celebration. At the June 9, 1980 city council meeting Council Member Bunce will give council members an up- to-date report on the activities scheduled for that day. Respectfully submitted, ~, Karl Nollenberger City Manager KN/ e j a ~- 1~~ CITX OF RICHFIELD, MINNESOTA Office of City Manager Council Letter No. 206 Agenda June 9, 1980 The Honorable Mayor and Members of the City Council City of Richfield Council Members: Subject: Purchases in Excess of $1,000 - Electrostatic Camera Platemaker and Cold Asphalt Mix Chapter Six, Section 6.05 of the city charter stipulates that the city council must approve purchases of merchandise, materials, equipment or construction when the amount exceeds $1,000. There are two such items on the June 9, 1980 city council agenda. C`nlrl Mix Each year the city uses approximately 200 tons of cold mix. Cold mix is an asphalt type substance used primarily for patching purposes. When weather conditions are wet such as late spring or early fall, it is used for temporary street patching until hot mix can be applied at a later date, and for repair of alleys constructed with cold mix. Quotations are received on the basis that the city can pick up whatever quantities are needed at any given time throughout the year. Some companies such as Commercial Asphalt Company do not have cold patch mix available. The price quoted by Bury and Carlson, Inc. was $19.50 per ton. The quotation from McNamara-Vivant Contracting Company, Inc. was $19.00 pe-r ton. it is recommended that the city council approve the purchase of an estimated 200 ton of cold patch mix from McNamara-Vivant Contracting Company, Inc. at a unit price of $19.00 per ton for an estimated total purchase of $3,800.00. Electrostatic Camera Platemaker During the past few months, the administrative services department has been reviewing the methods by which the city provides reproduction services. The city produces in-house such items as the utility billing inserts, the quarterly reports, budget documents, and numerous other large quantity informational materials. The one item in which considerable savings was immediately evident was the purchase of a new electrostatic camera platemaker. The current positive platemaker uses a film and other chemicals which in the last year have become very expensive. The current positive platemaker was purchased in 1975 with a useful life of 8 years for depreciation pur- poses. At the end of 1980, there will be $2,066 left to be fully depreciated. The original purchase price of the platemaker was $7,200. Council Letter No. 206 -2- June 9, 1980 Quotations for a new electrostatic camera platemaker with reduc- tion and enlargement capabilities were received from three firms: 3M Co., in the amount of $8,450; Itek Graphics Products, in the amount of $7,795; and Addressograph Multilith, Inc., in the amount of $10,196. The current operating cost per plate is $1.02. The estimated cost per plate using the 3M platemaker is $.17; using the Itek platemaker it is $.09 and using the Addressograph platemaker it is $.056. Based on the current usage of approximately 4030 plates per year the present cost is $4,110. The projected costs using the 3M platemaker would be $685, resulting in a yearly savings of $3,425; Itek cost is $363, result- ing in a yearly savings of $3,747; and $226 for Addressograph, resulting in a yearly savings of $3,884. When the operating cost and the purchase price is extended over the 8 year useful life period, the Itek platemaker is $1,305 less than either the 3M or the Addressograph platemaker. Considering the purchase price and the projected yearly savings, the purchase of a new Itek platemaker could be paid off in slightly more than two years. It is recommended that the city council approve the purchase of a new electrostatic Gamer platemaker from Itek Graphics Products in the amount of $7,795. Respectfully submitted, Karl Nollenberger City Manager KN/jf cc: Administrative Services Director June 5, 1980 Purchase Analysis for Camera Plate Maker 3 M ITEK A M Purchase $13,500 $ 9,995 $10,946 Trade-In 5,050 2,500 750 Freight -- 300 ? Total $ 8,450 $ 7,795 $10,196 Current Cost @1.02 $ 4,110 $ x,110 $ 4,110 1 yr Operating cost @ .17G 685 @.09 363 @.056 226 Operating/Savings $ 3,425 $ 3,747 $ 3,884 8 yr. operating cost $ 5,480 Purchase Price 8,450 8 year total cost $13,930 $ 2,904 7,795 $10,699 $ 1,808 10,196 $12,004 CITY OF RICHFIELD, NIINNESOTA Office of City Manager Council Leiter No. 205 The Honorable Mayor and Members of the City Council City of Richfield Council Members: Agenda Ju ~ 9, 1980 ~a~ ,~ ~° " ~' nr ~~ ~,o ~ ~ ~~ ~ Subject: Request for Fee Waived Licenses, Non-Intoxicating Malt Liquor and Itinerant Food /s 'On May 12, 1980, the city council gave first reading approval to an ordinance amendment which would provide for the issuance of tem- porary licenses to sell non-intoxicating malt liquor in city parks under certain restrictive conditions. Consideration of this ordinance amendment was, in part, a result of the interest of members of our fire division to sponsor a fund raising softball tournament for the Muscular Dystrophy Association as a part of our planned community wide Fourth of July celebration. In preparation for this proposed tournament our local firefighter's organization has submitted applications for both non-intoxicating malt liquor sales and for itinerant food sales for the three day period of July 4 - 6. All food and beverage sales will be conducted at a con- cession stand operated by members of the fire division and located in Taft Park. Because the sole purpose of the tournament is for fund raising purposes the request has been made that the regular fee for these two license applications be waived. Additionally, the request has been made that the normal field rental fee for the use of the park be waived. This type of request is made periodically but rarely is considered by the city council and approved. The field rental fee is charged for the direct out-of- ment schedule. KN/jf Respectfully submitted, 4~ t~, Karl Nollenberger City Manager cc: Public Safety Director Deputy City Clerk /G c CITY OF RICHFIELD, MINNESOTA Office of City Manager Council Letter No. 204 Agenda June 9, 1980 The Honorable Mayor and Members of the City Council City of Richfield Council Members: Subject: Award of Bid and Purchase Over $1,000 Public Safety Communications System In April, 1980 the city council rejected bids for public safety communications equipment and authorized the rebidding since only one bidder had responded. The one bid was in excess of the desired needs of the public safety operation and consequently was in excess of the communications budget. After a couple of meetings with sup- pliersjbids were opened on May 28, 1980, for the public safety com- munications system. As shown on the attached bid tabulation sheet, two bids were received for this system. One bid was presented by the Motorola Corporation and the second bid was presented by the General Communications (General Electric) Company. The low bid for the system was presented by Motorola Corporation in the amount of $102,944.50. The low bid~has been reviewed by our consulting en- gineer and found to be compliant with our established specifications in all respects. As noted on the attached tabulation sheet, the digital voice privacy equipment is a sole source feature manufactured only by the Motorola Corporation. Therefore, the cost for this por- tion of the communications system is identical with either of the bids received. In addition to the basic communications system equipment, the city has negotiated separately for the two remaining integral parts of the total system. These component system features include a twenty channel capacity audio recorder and a video recorder with remote control capabilities compatible with the communications con- sole equipment specified for our communications system. There is only one local supplier of a twenty channel capacity audio recording equipment, which also provides local factory maintenance service for the recording equipment furnished. Because of the unique needs within the public safety field for immediate service on equipment malfunctions the city has negotiated directly with the Dictaphone Corporation for the required audio recorder. The negotiated price for this component part of our communications system is $12,539.30. However, the city attorney has advised us that this must go through the formal bid process and this item will come back to the city council at a later date. The final integral component part of the communications system for which the city has negotiated separately from the basic system itself is the remote controlled video recorder. Again, because of the requirement that this piece of equipment be completely compatible with the specified communications console there are only limited Council Letter No. 204 -2- June 9, 1980 suppliers within our metropolitan area who both sell and service the required video recording equipment. Again, immediate access to factory service is a critical factor considered by the city in nego- tiating for this component item. The city has negotiated with the local distributor for Hitachi, Video Plus, for a remote control video recorder which meets our specifications for a total price of $1,600. Video Plus is a Richfield based firm and it is the objective of the city, whenever possible, to utilize suppliers located within our community. Finally, the installation of the new communications system will require approximately $2,200f`or miscellaneous electronic support equipment. The total cost of this equipment is within the budget established for the public safety communications system improvement project and funds are currently available to finance these expenditures. The specifications for the public safety communications system require completion of installation of the new equipment within 180 days of the award of contracts by the city council. Additionally, our specifications have included a penalty clause to assure compliance with our required installation period. It is the recommendation of the Director of Public Safety, in which I concur, that the council award the bid for the Public Safety Communications system to the Motorola Corporation. It is further recommended that the council authorize the purchase of the Hitachi remote controlled video recorder in the amount of $1,600, and author- ize the expenditure of up to $2,200 for the related electronic equip- ment to complete the installation of the communication system. It is recommended that the city council authorize solicitations for bids for an audio recorder. Respectfully submitted, Karl Nollenberg~ City Manager KN/ej a cc: Director of Public Safety i a CITY OF RICHFIELD Bid Opening May 28, 1980 Public Safety and Public Works Communications Upgrading Project Pursuant to requirements of Resolution No. 1015, a meeting of the Administrative Staff was called by Karl Nollenberger, City Manager, who announced that the purpose of the meeting was to receive, open and read aloud, sealed bids for the Public Safety and Public Works Communications Upgrading Project as advertised in the official newspaper on April 30, 1980. • Present: Karl Nollenberger, City Manager Tom Morgan, Public Safety Director Paul Linnee, Administrative Assistant Sylvia Bergh, Acting City Clerk The following bids were submitted and read aloud: ITEM BIDDER AND BID SECURITY P Motorola General Communication B.B. 5% B.B. 5% BID ITEM lA UHF Control Station BID ITEM 2A Install lA BID ITEM 3A Main Police Base BID ITEM 4A Install 3A BID ITEM 5A Voting Comparators BID ITEM 6A Install Comprators BID ITEM 7A Satellite Rcvrs FS 2 BID ITEM 8A Install 7A BID ITEM 9A Satellite Rcvrs HiRise BID ITEM 10A Install 9A BID ITEM 11A Police Monitors BID ITEM 12A Install 11A BID ITEM 13A NOAA Receiver BID ITEM 14A Mod. 2ch GE PD }ease BID ITEM 15A Relocate 45.66 Base $ 3,764.00 $ 4,661.40 560.00 637.50 2,758.00 3,449.30 715.00 1,105.00 1,977.00 3,524.10 590.00 510.00 1,872.50 3,246.58 575.00 425.00 2,229.50 3,306.08 460.00 425.00 1,329.00 1,437.35 300.00 153.00 843.00 808.35 2,421.00 3,283.55 608.50 1,051.45 Public Safety Communications Project Page -2- BID ITEM 16A Mod. GE 2ch CH 3 Base $ 1,260.50 $ 2,524.50 BID ITEM 17A New FD Base Station 3,131.00 4,136.53 BID ITEM 18A Install 17A 775.00 595.00 BID ITEM 19A Mod 2 CH GE FD Base 1,842.50 2,189.60 BID ITEM 20A LG Repeater Base 6,388.00 5,827.60 BID ITEM 21A Install LG Base 640.00 680.00 BID ITEM 22A LG Base Phone Patch 2,395.00 1,942.25 BID ITEM 23A Fire Div Desk Sets 1,006.00 731.00 BID ITEM 24A Fire Div Spkrs/Amps 132.00 255.00 BID ITEM 25A Install Fire Remotes 800.00 374.00 BID ITEM 26A Police Div Remotes 1,873.00 913.75 BID ITEM 27A Install Police Remotes 400.00 467.50 BID ITEM 28A Main 2 Pos Console 44,502.00 54,388.10 BID ITEM 29A Install Console 4,917.00 5,100.00 Total Bid A $ 91,064.50 $108,148.50 BID ITEM 1B DPV Standby Base -- $ 11,240.00 BID ITEM 2B Install 1B 640.00 Total Bid B $102,944.50 Grand Total ,120.028.50 The City Manager announced that the bids would be tabulated and considered at the regular city council meeting of June 9, 1980. s Sylvia K. Bergh Acting City Clerk CITY OF RICHFIELD, MINNESOTA Office of City Manager Council Letter No. 203 Agenda June 9, 1980 The Honorable Mayor and Members of the City Council City of Richfield Council Members: Subject: Award of Bid and Purchase Over $1,000 Public Safety Vehicles The 1980 budget program for the Department of Public Safety provides for the replacement of one rescue truck for the Emergency Services Division and the addition of one pick-up truck for the Fire Division. The rescue truck for the Emergency Services Division replaces a fully depreciated vehicle presently in our central garage revolving fund. The addition of the pick-up truck for the Fire Division is to facilitate the expanded inspection responsibilities assumed by the members of this division under our city reorganiza- tion, as well as to facilitate the transportation cf. persor_nel and equipment during fire emergency situations. The funds for this new vehicle are currently available in the fire vehicle reserve fund. Bids were opened for these vehicles on May 22, 1980. The city received three bids as outlined on the attached bid tabulation sheet. The low bid for the two trucks specified was submitted by Bill Boyer Ford Trucks in the amount of $19,179.76. The bid has been examined and found to be in compliance with the established specifications for these vehicles. In addition to the two vehicles themselves, a fiberglas rescue body is required for the truck to be utilized by the Emergency Ser- vices Division. There is only one local manufacturer of fiberglas rescue bodies which can meet the needs and specifications required by the Department of Public Safety. Therefore, the city has nego- tiated directly with this manufacturer, Truck Utilities Manufactur- ing Company, for the required fiberglas rescue body unit to be fur- nished for a total price of $3,366. The fiberglas body will be in- stalled on the new truck by our central garage. It is the recommendation of the Director of Public Safety, in which I concur, that the city council award the bid for the two trucks to Bill Boyer Ford Trucks in the amount of $19,179.76. Ad- ditionally, it is requested that the council authorize the purchase of the fiberglas rescue body from Truck Utilities Manufacturing Company in the amount of $3,366. Respectfully submitted, Karl Nollenberger City Manager KN/jf r~r-• Piihl in Cafnt~, Tlironf-nr r CITY OF RICHFIELD Bid Opening May 22, 1980 Two Three-Quarter Ton Pick-Up Trucks Bid Number 80-17 Pursuant to requirements of Resolution No. 1015, a meeting of the Administrative Staff was called by Karl Nollenberger, City Manager, who announced that the purpose of the meeting was to receive, open and read aloud, sealed bids for two three-quarter ton pick-up trucks as advertised in the official newspaper on May 7, 1980 Present: Karl Nollenberger, City Manager Tom Morgan, Public Safety Director Sylvia Bergh, Acting City Clerk The following bids were submitted and read aloud: BIDDER AND BID SECURITY VEHICLE VEHICLE TOTAL ~k1 ~~2 BID COST Bill Boyer Ford Trucks B.B. 5% $9520.04 $9659.72 $19,179.76 Midway Ford Company No Bid Ridgedale Ford Check $9723.69 $9906.61 $19,630.30 Superior Ford B.B. 5% $9565.00 $9673.00 $19,238.00 The City Manager announced that the bids would be tabulated and considered at the regular city council meeting of June 9, 1980. Sylvia K. Bergh Acting City Clerk ,~-~:~.. .; /o CITY OF RICHFIELD, MINNESOTA Office of City Manager Council Letter No. 202 The Honandble Mayor ~ }~`' ~ ~ ~ quo` ~ ~`, ~ ~s Members of the City Council ~ ~ ,~~~~ °~~ City of Richf field .~ ~ \ ~'~ Council Members: ~ ~` ~, 5 ~~ Subject: Authorization to Implement Final Salary Adjustment for Local 1215 Agenda June 9, 1980 t\y c;nar~ J'~~ yC7 interim wage adjustment under terms of the 1980 labor contract agreement with the International Association of Firefighters Local 1215. That labor contract provides that the 1980 wages of Richfield firefighters would be based on the 1980 wage rates of six comparable communities, and that the spec if is pay rate for a Richfield firefighter would be established at the average wage rate of the second and third highest cities amongst those six. On December 27, 1979, the city council implemented an interim wage adjustment for Richfield's fire- fighters, based on wage settlements reached by three of the other' cities. The City of Coon Rapids subsequently established their 1980 wage rates and on February 25, 1980, the council approved a second interim wage adjustment for Local 1215 employees. The last remaining city, South St. Paul, settled 1980 wage rates late last month, subse- quent to an arbitration award establishing those rates. Now that South St. Paul has settled, it is necessary to make a final adjustment in our 1980 firefighter rates, to conform with terms of the formula in the contract. The comparable cities and their 1980 monthly wage rates are as follows: Coon Rapids $1,821 South St. Ri hfi ld Paul 1,815 1 1 c e West St. Paul ,77 1,728 St. Louis Park 1,693 Edina 1,668 Columbia Heights 1,659 Based upon the formula outlined in the contract, the final 1980 monthly pay rate for top Richfield firefighter would become $1,771.55, or 12.31% over the 1979 monthly pay rate of $1,577.38. ~~ r Council Letter No. 202 -2- June 9, 1980 division budget to cover the city's 1980 pension contributions. As you know, the city's pension contributions are based on the wage rate for top firefighter. At the time that the city council approved the secohd interim 1980 wage adjustment, funds were transferred to the fire division to represent the increased costs of the city's pension contribution at that time. Due to the large size of the wage settle- ment, there are not adequate funds remaining on the contingency account to cover the costs of this final labor contract settlement for 1980. Of the total cost of the settlement of $25,573, the contingency account will pay for $11,220 of it. The remaining $14,353 will have to come from the fund balance in the General Fund. The attached resolution transfers $11,220 from the contingency account (and re- duces the contingency account to zero), and $14,353 from the fund balance. In addition to the basic wa transfer additional funding from It is recommended that the city council adopt this resolution. Res ectfully submitted, ~o Karl Nollenberg City Manager KN/eja cc: Administrative Services Director Finance Coordinator Public Safety Director .~ RESOLUTION N0. RESOLUTION AUTHORIZING IMPLEMENTATION OF A FINAL ADJUSTMENT IN SALARIES TO INTER- NATIONAL ASSOCIATION OF FIREFIGHTERS LOCAL 1215 WHEREAS, Resolution No. 6130 appropriated funds for each department of the City for the year 1980, and WHEREAS, contingency appropriation was made in the General Fund for various purposes, including the-1980 salary adjustments and the related fringe benefit contributions, and WHEREAS, Resolution No. 6067 approved the Agreement between the City of Richfield and the Members of Local 1215, International Assoc- iation of Firefighters, AFL-CIO for the years 1978-1980 which provides for a pay plan and establishes the maximum employer contrib- ution for health insurance purposes; and WHEREAS, it is hereby determined necessary to adjust the 1980 budget appropriation by $25,573 to reflect adjustments required by this Agreement. NOW, THEREFORE,~BE IT RESOLVED by the City Council of the City of Richfield that the sum of $11,220 be transferred from the con- tingency appropriation of the General Fund to the Public Safety Department. BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED that there are not adequate funds in the congingency account to reflect this adjustment and $14,353 be transferred from the fund balance of the General Fund to the Public Safety Department. Passed by the City Council of the City of Richfield this 9th day of June, 1980. Donald J. Priebe Mayor ATTEST: y via K. Bergh, Deputy City Clerk CITY OF RICHFIELD, MINNESOTA Office of City Manager Council Letter No. 201 Agenda June 9, 1980 The Honorable Mayor and Members of the City Council City of Richf field Council Members: Subject: Ordinance Amendment Relating to Sale and Consumption of Beer in Parks. Second Reading. On May 12, 1980, the city council gave first reading approval to an ordinance amendment which would permit, under certain des- cribed and limited circumstances, the possession and consumption of alcoholic beverages in city parks. The existing ordinance contains a flat prohibition on the possession and consumption of alcoholic beverages in city parks. A copy of the ordinance amendment the ordinance provides that beer sales Taft and Auasbura Parks. Such sales c been desig- ~ ~ r n ~ n i n n- for providing police protection to the area during beer sales. The ordinance further establishes that there will be a $10.00 licensing fee for a beer in the park permit. This ordinance is. placed on the June 9, 1980 city council agenda for council review of second reading consideration. Respectfully submitted, ~~ 11~ ~~ ~..~_,_.~ ~,~ ~ -- Karl Nollenberger City Manager KN/eja is attached. Specifically, cc: Director Community Services Director Public Safety City Attorney LLGAL NOTICE • BILL 1980-13 ,~ AMENDMENTS TO CHAPTER IV, APPENDIX D AND CHAPTER X, PART III OF THE ORDINANCE CODE OF THE CITY OF RICHFIELD City of Richfield Does Ordain: I. Chapter IV, of the Ordinance-Code of the City of Richfield dealing with the- regulation of Public places is hereby amended by adding thereto Section 4.17 which shall read as follows: 4.17 SALE AND CONSUMPTION OF BEER IN PARKS Subdivision 1. Definitions. The following terms shall have the meanings described herein: (1) "Sale" means all means of furnishing and includes but is not limited to the furnishing for money or other consideration. (2) "Beer" means any beverage which is produced. wholly or (- in part from the brewing of any grains or malt or malt substitute and containing more than one-half of one percent alcohol by volume. (3) "Organization" means any entity having religious, veteran, charitable or business activities as its principal purpose and which qualifies in all respects for the issuance of a license to sell the type of beer to be furnished at the activity or event for which the permit is being sought. Subd. 2. Sale and Consumption prohibited. EYCept as permit- ted by this section, the sale or consumption of alcoholic beverages is prohibited in the public parks of the city. Subd. 3. Permit. Any organization desiring to sell beer in Taft or Augsburg ParTc --may apply for a perY:~it to do so . Such application shall be made upon fornls furnished by the city clerk for that purpose. Subd. 4. Application. The application shall contain the following information together with any additional informa- tion requested by the city: (1) Full name and address of the organization. (2) A brief statement of the organization's purposes and activities. 1 (3) The length of time the organization has been in existence. ._.- (4) The number of active members. (5) A brief description of the event or activity for which the permit is being requested. (6) The park proposed to be used for the activity including any facilities in the park which will be used. ~- (7) The dates and times for which the permit is re- quested. (8) The anticipated number of participants. (9) The person or persons from the organization who will be in responsible charge of the event or activity and of the sale of beer. The application shall be made to the city manager who may refer the application to such departments as he deems advis- able for review. The city manager shall then make his recommendation to the city council which may grant or deny the permit. ~;~ Subd. 5. Permit Fee. The fee shall be as provided in Appendix D of this Code and shall be paid in full at the time of application. Subd. 6. Bond. The council may require, as a condition of issuance of the permit, an indemnity bond holding the city harmless from liability of any kind or character and reim- bursing the city for any property damage or clean-up costs. The council may also require, in addition to or in lieu of such bond, that the organization furnish proof of insurance adequately covering all such actions, claims or costs, and may require that the city be made an additional insured. Subd. 7. Conditions of Issuance. Organization Permits may be issued only to organizations which qualify in all re- spects with the following criteria: (1) Is located in the City of Richfield. (2) Has been in continuous existence for a period of at least 3 years. (3) Has at least 20 active members. (4) Has established to the satisfaction of the city that the proposed event or activity will be con- :,. 2 ducted and will be controlled in such to constitute a hazard to or a source or annoyance to other persons in the adjacent property. a way as not of nuisance park or on (5) Has designated persons in responsible charge who are-free of convictions for offenses relating to the fitness of such persons to perform their duties. (6) Has a currently valid license issued by the city authorizing the sale of the type of beer to be sold at the activity or event for which the permit is being sought. Currently valid licenses pre- viously granted to the organization allowing such sale at a different location within the city will satisfy this requirement provided that the insur- ance and bond required under such license cover the sale of beer in a public park. (7) Executes a written agreement in form acceptable to the city releasing the city from any claim by the organization and holding the city harmless from any claims by others arising out of or occasioned by cancellation of ther permit pursuant to sub- divisions 9 and 10 of this section. Subd. 8. Conditions on Permitted Activity. The following I conditions apply to the activity: i (1.) Sale or constIInption of beer is allowed only in connection with National or State holidays or during civic celebrations so designated by the Council. Sale and cons~ctption is further limited to the dates and timers specified by the Council in the permit. (2) The sale and consumption of beer is not allowed in streets or parking areas adjacent to the park. The council may further limit the areas within the park where beer may be sold or consumed. (3) The sale of beer to and consumption of beer by individuals who are forbidden by any statute or ordinance from purchasing or consuming such bev- erage is not allocaed under the permit. The council may further limit the sale or consumption to be allowed under the permit. (4) Alcoholic beverages other than the beer sold by the organization holding the permit may not be consumed in the park. (S) The event or activity must be conducted and con- trolled in such a manner as not to constitute a hazard to or a source of nuisance or annoyance to ~- other persons in the park or on adjacent property. 3 (6) All rubbish, trash and debris shall be removed from the park and disposed of by the organization promptly at the conclusion of the event or activ- ity. The organization shall be responsible for all clean-up expenses. (7) The sale to each customer~at any one time may not exceed 16 ounces of beer (8) A police officer or officers, as determined by the cot:ncil, k~uld be in attendance at the permit site at the Pxpense of the applicant at all times and while beer is being sold. Subd. 9. Cancellation of Permit. If, at any time following the issuance of the permit, the city manager or the director of public safety conclude that the sale of beer for which the permit was granted will likely be detrimental to the public health, safety or welfare, or will likely result in violation of statutes or ordinances relating to sale of alcoholic beverages, or is likely not to be ade- quately controlled by the organization, then either may recommend to the council that the permit be cancelled. The council shall consider the recommendation at its next regu- larly scheduled council meeting occurring at least 5 days from the date of such recommendation. The council may cancel the permit, or allow it to continue in effect or may modify such permit as it deems necessary. If the event has already commenced, or if sufficient time does not exist to bring the matter before the council, the city manager, upon the recommendation of the public ~. safety director, may act to cancel the permit. If the permit is cancelled, while the activity is in progress, the police division shall immediately notify the person in charge of the sale of beer of such cancellation. The organi- zation shall immediately cease the sale of beer and shall immediately remove all unsold beer from the park. At the request of the police division the organization will assist in the restoration of order in the park and shall, if re- quested, cancel the event or activity. Subd. 10. Consumption and Possession After Cancellation. Any person lawfully purchasing beer from the organization prior to cancellation of the permit may lawfully possess and consume such beer in the park for a period of 30 minutes following such cancellation. Thereafter possession or consumption of beer in the park is illegal. The police division take reasonable steps to notify those present in the park of such time limit but failure to give such notice - tb a particular individual shall not constitute a defense by such individual to any charge arising out of such illegal possession or comsumption Before any individual may be charged under this subdivision, tie shall be informed that his possession or consumption is illegal and be given an opportunity to surrender the beer in his possession. No charge shall be brought against such individual if he promptly and voluntarily surrenders his beer at that time. ~_ 4 t ~ II. Appendix D on the Ordinance Code of the City of Richfield containing the various permit and license fees is hereby amended by adding the following new paragraph to Section 8 thereof: TYPE OF PERMIT SECTION FEE OR LICENSE REQUIRING (5 ) Beer in Park 4.17 $ 1L~ QC III. Chapter X, Part III, Section 10.16 of the Ordinance Code of the City of Richfield defining certain misdemeanor offenses is hereby amended by amending Subdivision 5 thereof to read as follows: Subdivision 5. Public Possession and Consumption of Alco- holic Beverages. Except as permitted in Section 4.17 of this Code, [A]ny person who consumes intoxicating liquor as defined by Minnesota Statutes Section 340.07, subdivision 2 or non-intoxicating malt liquor as defined by Minnesota Statutes Section 340.001, Subdivision 2, while (1) on a public street, park or other public place, or (2) on any private property without the consent of the owner of such property, or (3) while in a vehicle upon any public street and any person who possesses such intoxi- cating or non-intoxicating liquor in any park including all public parking areas located within or immediately adjacent to any park. Passed by the City Council of the City of Richfield, itiIinnesota this day of 1980. Donald Priebe, Mayor ATTEST: Sylvia, Bergh, City Clerk ~,1 - S CITY OF RICHFIELD, MINNESOTA Office of City Manager Council Letter No. 200 Agenda June 9, 1980 The Honorable Mayor and Members of the City Council City of Richf field Council Members: Subject: Ordinance Amendment Relating to Moving Buildings, First Reading In Minnesota Richfield has not historically licensed building movers, but has required building movers to provide performance bonds and evidence of insurance. The 1979 legislation provides that licensed building movers are to give such bonds and provide proof of insurance to the State of Minnesota in lieu of providing this security to individual municipalities. For this reason, it is necessary that Richfield amend its ordinance on the moving of buildings to take into account the new state licensing and bond- ing requirements. Attached to this council letter is an ordinance amendment which would do so. It is recommended that the city council give first reading approval to this ordinance amendment at the June 9, 1980 city council meeting. Respectfully submitted, 1, Karl Nollenberger City Manager KN/eja cc: City Attorney Deputy City Clerk Director of Administrative Services Director of Public Safety P ., AMENDMENT TO CHAPTER IV, SECTION 4.07 OF THE RICHFIELD ORDINANCE CODE RELATING TO THE MOVING OF BUILDINGS ' CITY OF RICHFIELD DOES ORDAIN: Chapter IV, Section. 4.07, Subdivision 4 of the Ordinance Code• of the City of Richfield relating to applications for per- mits for the moving of buildings is hereby amended to provide as follows: "Subd. 4. Contents of Application. The application shall be made in writing, upon forms provided by the director and shall contain such information as the director finds necessary to a determination of whether a permit should be issued. The following items shall accompany all applications: "(1) The owner of the building to be moved shall file with the application sufficient evidence that all real estate taxes and special assessments against the building and lot from which it is to be removed are paid in full. "(2) The applicant, if other than the owner, shall file with the application sufficient written evidence that he is entitled to move the building. "(3) The applicant shall file with the applica- tion prior to issuance of permit, written evidence of arrangements with all public utility companies whose wires, lamps or poles are required to be removed, for the removal thereof by the company. "(4) The applicant shall furnish proof satisfac- tory to the director that the building mover is fully licensed under all applicable laws of the State of Minnesota, including Minnesota Statutes, Section 221.81, and complies with and has satisfied all rules and regulations promulgated thereunder." Chapter IV, Section 4.07, Subdivision 5 of the Ordinance Code of the City of Richfield relating to building movers' permit fees is hereby amended to provide as follows: 1 f ~ ~ "Subd. 5. Permit Fee. The application shall be accom- panied by a nonrefundable permit fee as provided in Appendix D of this Code." Chapter IV, Section 4.07, Subdivision 6 of the Ordinance Code of the City of Richfield relating to building movers' cash security deposits is hereby repealed in its entirety as follows: "Subd. 6. [Security Requirement - Cash Deposit. Each application shall be accompanied by a cash deposit in the sum of $500 as an indemnity for any damage which the city may sustain by reason of damage or injury to any highway, street or alley, sidewalk, fire hydrant or other property of the city, which may be caused by or be incidental to the removal of any building over, along or across any street in the city, and for any expense incurred by the city.]" Chapter IV, Section 4.07, Subdivision 7 of the Ordinance Code of the City of Richfield relating to building movers' insur- ance requirements is hereby repealed in its entirety as follows: "Subd. 7. [Security Requirements - Insurance. Each application shall be accompanied by a liability insur- ance policy or certificate of such insurance, issued by an insurance company authorized to do business in the State of Minnesota, and approved as to form by the city attorney. The policy shall insure the applicant, and the city as an insured, in the sum of at least $25,000 for injury to one person, and $50,000 for one accident, and at least $25,000 property damage. The policy shall be kept in effect until after the building has been moved.]" Chapter IV, Section 4.07, Subdivision 9 of the Ordinance Code of the City of Richfield relating to the standards for issuance of a permit to move buildings is hereby amended to provide as follows: "Subd. 9. Standards for Issuance. The council shall refuse to issue a permit if it finds: z w ii "(1) [That any application requirement or any fee or deposit bond, or insurance requirement, has not been satisfied.] That the mover is not duly licensed by the State of Minnesota; "(2) That the building is too large to move with- out endangering persons or property in the city; "(3) That the building is in such a state of deterioration or disrepair or is otherwise so struc- turally unsafe that it could not be moved without endangering persons and property in the city; "(4) That the building is structurally unsafe or unfit for the purpose for which moved, if the location to which the building is to be moved is in the city. "(5) That the applicant's equipment is unsafe and that persons and property would be endangered by its use; "(6) That the zoning or building provisions or any other provisions of this code would be violated by the building in its new location; "(7) That for any other reason persons or property in the city would be endangered by the moving of the building." Chapter IV, Section 4.07, Subdivision 12 of the Ordinance Code of the City of Richfield relating to building movers' fees and deposits is hereby repealed in its entirety as follows: "Subd. 12. [Fees and Deposits. If the council refuses to issue a permit, he shall direct the return to the applicant of all deposits, bonds and insurance poli- cies. Permit fees filed with the applicant shall not be returned. After the building has been removed, the director shall furnish the City Manager with a written statement of all expenses incurred and of all damage caused to or inflicted upon property belonging to the City by reason of the removal. The city manager shall authorize the return to the applicant of all deposits after deducting a sum sufficient to pay for all of the costs and expenses and for all damage done to property of the city. Permit fees deposited with the application shall not be returned.]" 3 w ~ `s Chapter IV, Section 4.07, Subdivision 13 of the Ordinance Code of the City of Richfield relating to building movers' rout- ing and other restrictions is hereby amended to read as follows: "Subd. 13. Designation of Streets for Removal. The director shall designate streets over which the build- ing may be moved. The director shall have the list approved by the chief [Chief] of olice [Police] and shall reproduce the list upon the-permit in writing. In making their determinations, the director and the chief [or] of police shall endeavor to insure maximum safety to persons and property in the city and to minimize congestion and traffic hazards on public streets. The director may also designate the hours, movement, parking,"or s eed limit of the buildin mover . " Chapter IV, Section 4.07, Subdivision 16 of the Ordinance Code of the City of Richfield relating to the rehabilitation of building removal sites is hereby repealed in its entirety as follows: "Subd. 16. [Original Premises Left Unsafe. If the original building site is within the city, the city shall proceed to do the work necessary to leaving the original premises in a safe and sanitary condition, where the permittee does not comply with the require- ments of this section, and the cost thereof shall be charged against the cash deposit.]" Passed by the City Council of the City of Richfield, Minne- sota, this day of 1980. Mayor ATTEST: City Clerk 4